- (1.) SHRI Ratan Lal Sharma S/o Sh. Mali Ram Sharma is hereby appointed as Personal Assistant to Chairman in the pay scale of Rs. 620 - 1100 with other usual allowances with effect from 4th August, '82, the date from which he has taken over as P.A. to Chairman. He will also be entitled to other facilities as admissible. This bears the approval of Chairman. Sd/ -Sher NathSecretary.Copy for information and necessary action to the following:1. PS to Chairman, RHB, Jaipur,
(2.) P .A. to H.C. Secretary, DAO, Dy. HC (HO), Dy. HC (J/C) Dy. HC (Kota Circle), Jodhpur Circle, 3. Finance Cell 4. All concerned. A modification of this order was passed on September 6,1982 wherein it was mentioned that in partial modification of the previous order, dated 2nd September, 1982, Shri Ratan Lal Sharma is appointed as Personal Assistant to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board on contract basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 730/ - per month with other facilities like D.A., H.R.A., CCA. and other allowances admissible on such pay from time to time till his services are found suitable by the Chairman, Shri R.N. Chaudhary resigned, an order terminating the services of the peittioner, was passed. This order specifically speaks that the term of employment of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma expires from the date of resignation of Shri Chaudhary hence his services are terminated. The aforesaid order however, was withdrawn vide order, dated January 31, 1984 which reads as under: Office order No. PER Cell 36/dated 12 -1 -1984 by which the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma P.A. to Chairman were terminated is hereby withdrawn. This bears the approval of the Chairman, R.H.B., Jaipur. Eversince then the petitioner continued in service and was almost considered as a permanent employee of the Board such as he was permitted the registration of a house as a Board employee on April 20, 1984 and ex gratia grant at the rate of 8.33% was also paid to him vide order dated October 8, 1986. Petitioner's furthercase is that Rajasthan Housing Board in its meeting No. 127 held on October 22, 1986, under the Chairmanship of the then Chairman Shri Adarsh Kishore unanimously resolved that the services of Shri Ratan Lal Sharma should be regularised keeping in view his experience of 41/2 years, his efficiency, integrity, devotion to duty and honesty. Since inadvertently this resolution could not be incorporated in the minutes a corrigendum was issued on Novermber 6, 1986 to that effect. While he was serving as Personal Assistant to the Chairman vide order, dated December 30, 1986, he was sent on deputation at Reception Counter, it was mentioned in the order that for effective and smooth working of the Reception Counter Shri Ratan Lal Sharma presently working in Chairman cell is hereby deputed at Reception Counter vice Smt. Snehlata, Assistant and she is hereby directed to submit her joining report to the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Circle -II. The petitioner in writ petition No. 69/87 challenged this order, since according to him posting at the Reception Counter was not on an equivalent post but it was demotion because this post was being held by an U.D.C. and in 113th Board's meeting dated October 15, 1984, the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman was made equivalent to P.R.O., L.A.O., A.H.O., Tehsildar, A.A.O. and Record Officer in the grade of Rs. 820 -1550. On January 7, 1987, my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kasliwal, as then he was, stayed the operation of the aforesaid order which was confirmed by my learned brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma J. on February 25, 1987. The case there after became a Division Bench case and when it came for hearing before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble V.S. Dave and Hon'ble P.C. Jain JJ. and after hearing the parties at quite some length they were of the opinion that since the matter was betweem employer and the employee it would be better to amicably settle the dispute particulary because the petitioner was inclined to join on transferred post provided the Board considers his representation in its next meeting. He also gave to understand that he would not press the writ petition if his case is properly considered by the Board. Mr. B.L. Sharma appearing for Rajasthan Housing Board was gracious enough to express his willingness to use his good offices in the Board's meeting for amicably settling the dispute so that harmonious relations exist between employer and employee and there is smooth and efficient functioning of the department. The petitioner on his part despite the confirmation of stay order paved the way for compromise by joining on the post of Counter Supervisor to show his good gesture and bonafides. However, it was given to understand thereafter that though the representation of petitioner was placed before the Board on March 25, 1987, but it was not considered favourably and the petitioner continued to serve on the post of Counter Supervisor till he was posted as Incharge Reception and Library vide order dated August 19, 1987, on which post he joined on 20th August, 1987. On may 2, 1988 the petitioner was sent on deputation in the office of the Minister, Urban Development and Housing wherefrom he was again asked to join as personal Assistant to Chairman and Incharge Reception vide order, dated August 30, 1988. The petitioner's name has not been shown in any seniority list, though he had been making representations. The Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated April 24, 1990, addressed to the Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board asked the reason for not including his name in the seniority list and directed that till then seniority list should not be finalised. Before any decision could be taken or communicated, vide order, dated June 4, 1990, the petitioner was transferred/posted in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Housing Circle II, Jaipur which order he challenged in writ petition No. 2439/90. The petitioner's case therefore, is that he is illegally being deprived of his legal right of being fixed in the payscale of the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman and further that he has a right to be posted on the post of Personal Assistant to the Chairman or its equivalent post available. Petitioner's further grievance is that he has wrongly been treated as on contract basis appointee which came to be terminated as soon as the order terminating his services were withdrawn vide order dated January 31, 1984.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri S.C. Agrawal on the aforesaid facts submitted that it is regrettable that a statutory body like Rajasthan Housing Board is playing with the career of its employee who has always been considered to be a man of high integrity, having dedicated devotion to duty and is efficient in his work and whose services had been appreciated from time to time, in as much as the Board in its meeting dated October 22, 1986 after considering his various qualities unanimously resolved to regularise his services. Further submission of the learned Counsel is that under the garb of the transfer orders issued from time to time he is being demoted to the lower posts. To illustrate he submit that earlier he was deputed to work as Counter Supervisor and now in the office of a Deputy Commissioner where no post equivalent to the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman exists. It is submitted that once the order appointing him on contract basis followed by order of termination of his service was unconditionally withdrawn and then the Board resolved to regularise his services on the post of Personal Assistant to Chairman he ought to have been given the pay scale of the post of L.A.O., A.H.O., Record Officer, A.A.O. or Public Relation Officer and is liable to be transferred on any of these posts. It is submitted that the non -petitioner is not granting any increment to the petitioner who is serving efficient for five years and this action is wholly unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. Learned Counsel submitted that since the petitioner is serving the statutory Corporation having force of law the petitioner has a statutory status and his employment has to be considered as a matter of status and not of contract. It is then submitted that the petitioner who had been continuously serving for such a long period, his services are required to be regularised. Even assuming that he does not have minimum educational qualification but that ought to have been seen at the time of initial appointment and it has no relevance at the stage of confirmation. Reliance is this connection has been placed on Bhagwatiprasad v. Delhi State Min.Dev. Corp. : (1990)ILLJ320SC . It is further submitted that considering for a moment that it was because of the humanatarian consideration that the order of termination was withdrawn yet when the petitioner has been continued in service even if on contractual service for five years, sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over his neck for all times. It is wholly unwarranted in a welfare State.;