Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 11.7.2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned Order dated 1.7.2001 (Annex. 12) passed by the Assistant Engineer (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. be quashed and set aside and services of the petitioner be regularised and further the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner his emoluments from 1.9.2000.
(2.) AT the very outset, it may be stated that originally this writ petition was filed before Division Bench of this Court as provisions of Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointment in Public Service and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999) were challenged and since the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3271/2001 decided on 23.7.2002 (reproted in, 2002(3) WLC (Raj.) 728, has declared Sections 9, 11 & 19 of the Act of 1999 as unconstitutional and, therefore, Division Bench of this Court through order dated 13.8.2002 ordered that this case be listed before Single Bench and hence this case has been listed before this Court. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Casual worker on 24.5.1994 for 60 days and his services were further extended by order dated 3.8.1994 for 60 days following by order dated 21.10.1994 (Annex. 1) whereby the services of the petitioner were again extended for 3 months w.e.f. 1.10.1994. (ii) That thereafter the order dated 2.12.1994 (Annex. P/2) was passed by the Chief Engineer (O & M), Rajasthan State Electricity Board by which the services of the petitioner were again extended for six months. (iii) That the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated through order dated 20.4.1995 (Annex. P/3) passed by Assistant Engineer (LD), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Rawatbhata (respondent No. 4). (iv) That the further case of the petitioner is that despite passing of order dated 20.4.1995 (Annex. P/3), the petitioner continued in service and discharged his duties as helper on consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/ - per month. (v) That thereafter through order dated 18.3.1996 (Annex. P./4), the petitioner was declared as work charged helper, but his salary was not changed and he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/ - per month which was being paid to him earlier. (vi) That thereafter the order dated 20.12.1996 (Annex. P/5) was passed by the Assistant Engineer (LD), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Rawatbhata (respondent No. 4) whereby the petitioner was re -appointed as work charged helper. (vii) That through order dated 23.7.1996 (Annex. P/6) services of the petitioner were again ordered to be extended. This order was followed by another orde dated 23.1.1999 (Annex. P/7) which was passed after a lapse of aproximately 3 years whereby the services of the petitioner were again ordered to be extended. Thereafter through order dated 30.6.2000 (Annex. P/8) the services of the petitioner were again ordered to be extended. (viii) That after passing the order dated 30.6.2000 (Annex. P./8) no order was passed extending the services of the petitioner, but the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, but, he was not paid salary with effect from 1.9.2000. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents for payment of his salary. Ultimately, the petitioner served a legal notice (Annex. P -9) through his advocate on 22.6.2001. (ix) Further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order dated 1.7.2001 (Annex. P/12) passed by Assistant Engineer (O & M). Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Rawat Bhata, the services of the petitioner were terminated keeping in mind provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1999. (x) In this writ petition, the impugned order dated 1.7.2001 (Annex. P/12) passed by Assistant Engineer (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Rawat Bhata has been challenged along with the provisions of Act of 1999 on various grounds.
(3.) REPLY to the writ petition was filed by the respondents.;