- (1.) THE present petitioner (original plaintiff) has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the learned District Judge (Dausa) (here-in-after referred to as the "appellate court") in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/2010, whereby the appellate court has set-aside the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Lalsot, District Dausa (here-in-after referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Misc. Application No. 73/2008.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner (original plaintiff) has filed the suit before the trial court seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 (original defendants) from removing the plaintiff from the post of Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Dob and seeking mandatory injunction to pay him the wages. The petitioner-plaintiff had also moved an application seeking temporary injunction being no. 73/2008, which came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 9.4.2010, whereby the Gram Panchayat, Dob was restrained from removing the petitioner-plaintiff from the post of Rojgar Sahayak. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents (original defendants) had filed the appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/2010 before the appellate court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 3.11.2010. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by way of present petition. It has been submitted by Mr. Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under NREGA scheme as Rojgar Sahayak and the respondents were bent upon removing him from the said post without any justifiable reason. He also submitted that the petitioner was also required to sign a prescribed agreement and accordingly, he was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the list of Rojgar Sahayak. According to Mr. Ranjan, the respondents could not have removed the petitioner from the post of Rojgar Sahayak without following the due process of law and considering the said position, the trial court had rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The Government Counsel, however, submitted that the suit in the present form was not maintainable before the trial court and the petitioner-plaintiff did not have any right, much less legal right to be continued as Rojgar Sahayak. Learned counsel has also relied upon Section 19 of the NREGA Act to submit that the proper forum to ventilate the grievances of the petitioner would be the forum that is constituted by the State Government under the said Act. He also submitted that the appointment of the petitioner being purely contractual and that too only for one year, he had no right to be continued on the said post. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, it transpires that the appellate court had set-aside the order passed by the trial court granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. From the said orders and the documents on record, it transpires that the petitioner was working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak under NREGA scheme purely on contractual basis. From the copy of agreement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also, it transpires that his appointment was purely contractual and was liable to be terminated without any notice or compensation. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the suit itself was not maintainable, this Court restrains itself from entering into the merits of the maintainability of the suit. Suffice it to say that the petitioner-plaintiff could not claim or seek relief of temporary injunction as regards his continuation on the post of Rojgar Sahayak, when his appointment was purely on contractual basis. It was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid his wages though he had worked during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the said fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) BE that as it may, it is expected that the respondents shall pay the wages to the petitioner, if, in-fact, he had worked as Rojgar Sahayak and if his presence has been marked in the attendance register is maintained by the concerned Gram Panchayat. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appellate court and the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed. ;