Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of two writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1729 of 2013 titled as "Baljeet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, No. 5057 of 2013 titled as "Jagdeep Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others", as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate judgment, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 1729 of 2013. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure P5) whereby their services from the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak (In short "GRS") were dispensed with. Further prayer has been sought for re -induction in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (In short "NREGS") as per the appointment letter dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P3) and for release of one year salary from the month of August, 2011 to September, 2012.
(2.) AS per the pleaded case of the petitioners, an advertisement dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P2) was issued seeking staff (Additional Program Officers, Technical Assistants, Computer Assistants, Gram Rozgar Sewaks & Account Assistants) on contract basis for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (In short "the Scheme"). The petitioners applied for the post of Gram Rozgar Sewaks and were appointed vide letter dated 2.1.2009 (Annexure P3) for Block Sangrur. Their contract was extended on 20.4.2010 firstly from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 and then from 1.4.2012 upto 30.9.2012 vide order dated 18.4.2012 (Annexure P4). The petitioners were doing their duties but pay was not given to them from April, 2011 onwards inspite of their protest. Thereafter, they were relieved from the above said post vide impugned order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure P5). No reason was given but some of the earlier appointed similarly situated persons, who were ordered to be relieved along with the petitioners were held eligible for renewal of the contract and the Scheme was still running. A representation was also filed but no relief was given and therefore, legal notice was served on 18.12.2012 (Annexure P9). Resultantly, the petitioners have approached this Court. In the written statement, filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, it has been averred that the petitioners were relieved after the expiry of the contract period and as per Clause 6 of the agreement. The period was upto 30.9.2012 as per service contract and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to claim regularization and their services were dispensed with. The supervisory staff was engaged for the period of one year and further staff was engaged on the basis of need and given the district's ability to pay the remuneration out of the 4% contingency grant under the Scheme. Services of the petitioners were dispensed with due to the fact that need was less and curtailment was necessary as per letter dated 19.6.2007 (Annexure R4/2). The work of the GRS was analyzed and on the basis of total expenditure and performance, the GRS, who had spent above Rs. 15,00,000/ -, were retained and their contract was renewed. The petitioners having performed below the limit and, therefore, their contract and services were dispensed with. The petitioners remained on strike from 10.10.2011 to 15.12.2011 and the honorarium could not be given due to paucity of funds. The salary was released from October, 2011 to September, 2012 on 19.3.2013 and the payments were made through cheques. One Manju Rani and Daljit Kaur were appointed but they were given additional charge as Computer Operator as they were having computer knowledge and since the posts of Computer Operators were lying vacant in these blocks.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has, accordingly, submitted that pick & choose policy has been resorted to and the contract of the petitioners was not extended.;