AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ( for short 'board') against the judgement of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition directing the Board to constitute an appropriate committee for absorption of the respondent in the regular service of the Board. The Board has further been directed to be given all consequential benefits with retrospective effect.
(2.) THE respondent-Rajesh Kumar was employed as an Orderly with effect from 18-1-1979 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 240/- p. m. at the residence of Shri J. N. Purohit, who was then the Chief Engineer working with the Board. THE respondent continued in the employment of Sh. J. N. Purohit and had been obtaining Rs. 240/- P. M. as salary. Sh. J. N. Purohit retired from service on 28th Feb. 1989 on attaining the age of superannuation. THEreafter, the respondent submitted an application on 3. 4. 1989 to the Board for his absorption in regular service of the Board. Alongwith this application, he also filed a certificate from Sh. J. N. Purohit that the respondent was in his employment as Class- IV employee and had rendered ten years satisfactory service. THE respondent was not absorbed, therefore, he filed the present writ petition mainly on the ground of discrimination and asserting violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant resisted the writ petition by asserting that the respondent was not an employee of the Board having been kept by Sh. J. N. Purohit for doing domestic work at his residence. He was not discharging any work of the Board. On retirement of Sh. J. N. Purohit, the respondent's service automatically came to an end. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that the Circular dated January 6, 1979 taking a policy decision of the Board regarding engagement of Orderlies made the respondent an employee entitled to be regularised on fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the said circular. The learned Judge's view was that the Board was estopped from asserting that respondent was not entitled to regularisation being not a servant of the Board. The learned Single Judge applied the principle of promissory estoppel for reaching to this conclusion. Another circular dated 9. 5. 1989 has been filed by the respondent. Four paragraphs of this circular relied upon are reproduced below : - "orderlies who have completed a period of one year or more but less than two years as on 9. 5. 89 shall be retrenched with immediate effect and the officers concerned with whom such Orderly is working will prepare a bill of retrenchment compensation alongwith the notice pay as under; The Orderlies who have completed service for 2 years or more as on 9th May,89 and who do not want to be absorbed in the services of the Board may also be retrenched after following the same procedure as mentioned above. For those Orderlies who have completed two years continuous period as on 9. 5. 89, the officer concerned will furnish the information in Annexure 'd' in triplicate immediately and forward the same to the Circle Personnel Officer duly verified by the Circle Accounts Officer. Where Personnel Officer has not been provided, then the officer concerned will furnish the required information to the head of the office. The Personnel Officer or the Head of the Office would forward the consolidated information positively by 30-5-89 to the Director of Personnel in the Board. A committee constituted as per the orders of the Board would screen the cases of all such Orderlies and would recommend their absorption or otherwise in Class IV or in other suitable and equivalent cadres. " Taking the view that the two circulars established that Orderlies though appointed by concerned officers, were treated to be under the employment of the Board and the payment of consolidated salary was being made by the Board and not by the individual officer from his pocket.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the appellants, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Rs. 240/- p. m. had been paid by the Board to Sh. J. N. Purohit by way of help to him to engage a domestic servant of his choice that did not bring about any relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the respondent. The respondent had no claim of being an employee of the Board by virtue of his engagement by Sh. J. N. Purohit. For all intends and purposes, it appears to us that the respondent was an employee of Sh. J. N. Purohit. As soon as Sh. J. N. Purohit retired, his employment also came to an end. It was, thereafter, that Rajesh Kumar moved an application for being regularised. During the time when Sh. J. N. Purohit was in employment, no claim of being an employee of the Board was ever made by Rajesh Kumar. The circular dated Jan. 6, 1979 did not bring about any relationship of employee and employer between the respondent and the Board. It simply offered a facility to its Engineers, who were given Rs. 240/- p. m. as a consolidated amount for being paid to the domestic servant. His terms and conditions were of a precarious nature and that did not make him an employee of the Board. The right given by this circular to claim regularisation was not an acceptance of the respondent's being an employee of the Board. It simply provided that on completion of two years continuous service, the respondent became eligible for being absorbed on regular basis against the requirement of sanctioned strength of Class-IV servants. This circular dated Jan. 6, 1979, however, never given effective and nothing had been brought on record to show that the respondent ever claimed regularisation and absorption on its basis. So far as the circular dated 9. 5. 1989 is concerned, we have not been able to show that conditions for applying the said circular had been satisfied in the case. In the absence of proof of those conditions, no right could accrue to the respondent. In the certificate given by Sh. J. N. Purohit also what was emphasized was that he worked at his residence from 18. 1. 1979 to 28. 2. 1989 and was found obedient. Sh. J. N. Purohit did not anywhere mention that he was an employee of the Board and that salary was given to him by the Board. It is no-where established that he was in the muster roll of the Board and that his terms and conditions of employment were those which had been prescribed by the Board. ;