- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Nurse Grade -II through Medical Relief Society on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs. 4,500/ - vide appointment order Annex -2 dated 19.12.2009 for a fixed period up to 31.03.2010 and they were attached with Dr. S.N. Medical College and Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur. Thereafter, vide order Annex -5 dated 30.04.2010, the period of contract for nursing and para -medical staff on contractual basis was extended up to 31.05.2010. Thereafter, there was no extension of contractual period in favour of petitioners to work on the said position and in these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing present writ petition on 18.08.2010 claiming the relief that the impugned action of the respondent -authority in treating the services of the petitioners as terminated as after June, 2010, may be quashed and set aside; and the petitioners may be allowed to continue on the post of Nurse Grade -II. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of this Court delivered in the case of Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCWP No. 5753/2010, decided on 05.08.2010] submitted that the petitioners have been working on the said position of Nurse Grade -II uptill now though the period of contract has not been extended after 31.05.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners' case is also similar to that of involved in the aforesaid case of Mahendra Singh (supra) and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief.
(3.) RECENTLY , this Court in another matter in SBCWP No. 9137/2010 Ram Swaroop v. State of Raj. and Ors., decided on 06.10.2010, has dealt with similar controversy relating to continuation of fixed terms contractual employees by the Panchayat Samiti -Degana on a fixed monthly honorarium as Social Scientist. In that matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ors. reported in : (1992) 4 SCC 118 and decision of this Court given in the case of Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in, 2009 WLC 498. This Court repelled the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in that matter in the following terms: 6. The difference between ad hoc employment or temporary employment, which was the subject matter of controversy before the Apex Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra), from the case in hand, namely, fixed term contractual employment, is of two different natures. While saying so in Para 46 of the said judgment, which is quoted below, the context of the case arising before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be kept in mind, that would be clear from the following extracts from Para 3, 9 & 10 of the said judgment, which is also reproduced hereunder. In the States of Punjab and Haryana over the last several years a large number of appointments were made to Class III and IV services on ad hoc basis i.e., without reference to Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Services Selection Board and without adhering to employment exchange requirements. As a result of this policy, a large number of ad hoc employees came into existence in both the States, who were continuing over several years without being regularised and were agitating for their regularisation. To meet the situation, both the Governments issued orders from time to time for regularisation of such employees subject to certain conditions. (See paras 6 to 8). Only those ad hoc/temporary employees who could not be regularised for want of satisfying one or the other of the conditions prescribed in the respective orders had approached the High Court by way of writ petitions. They contended that the conditions prescribed in the said orders were arbitrary, discriminatory and unrelated to the object. Besides the work -charged employees, daily -wagers, casual labour and those employed in temporary/time -bound projects too wanted to be regularised. The High Court in a common judgment accepted the pleas and gave certain directions (see para 16) regarding regularisation. Allowing the State's appeal. 7. In Para 50 of the said judgment, the Apex Court proceeded to further say that "the proper course would be that each States prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same way be made consistent with our observations herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. 8. In Para 51, the Apex Court observed that "So far as the work -charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work charged employees as well as casual labour. 9. Similarly, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra) dealing with the employment of Vidhyarthi Mitras under a scheme framed by the State Government relating to appointment for Government schools run by the State Government, the factual aspect of the said judgment as narrated by the learned Single Judge is contained in Para 3 of the said decision, which is reproduced hereunder: 3. The facts leading to this controversy are that the petitioners have been appointed as Vidharthi Mitras after issuance of the circular by the State Government on 2nd June, 2008 and the Vidharthi Mitras have been given appointment on account of possible delay in availability of RPSC selected candidates for promotion on the 6000 posts of Lecturers, 5000 posts of Senior Teachers and 1200 posts of Teacher Grade -III. The said Vidharthi Mitra Scheme was approved by the Finance Department vide circular dated 9.1.2007 and these Vidharthi Mitras were appointed on fixed remuneration as per their posts with condition that said recruitment will be for the period till the candidates regularly selected by the RPSC/DPC are made available or till 29.2.2009. The term fixed originally was extended upto 15th April, 2009 and it was not extended thereafter.;