Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE challenge made by this writ petition is to the order dated 19. 10. 82 (Annex. 4), issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur, by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated w. e. f. 20. 10. 1982.
(2.) THE case set out by the petitioner in his petition is that he possesses qualification of Intermediate. He was appointed as Group Secretary for a period of three months by an order dated 5. 11. 1981 issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jamwa Ramgarh. In the order of appointment it was mentioned that on the availability of the candidate selected by the Government his service will be terminated without any notice. THE term of appointment of the petitioner was extended by an order dated 19. 4. 1982 for a period of three months and even after expiry of that term his service has been continued without any break. However, by order dated, 19. 10. 82 (Annex. 4) his service has been terminated. THE reason for termination of his service as set out in the impugned order is that in view of the Government's order dated 27th November 1982 absorption of selected Group Secretary is required to be made. THE petitioner has stated that the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Samitis come within the definition of the term 'industry' under section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has been discharging the duties which are predominently Clerical in nature. He does not have any supervisory or Managerial functions. He does not have power to make appointment to take disciplinary action and to sanction leave to the staff of the Panchayat Samiti. He does not have power of disbursement of salary etc. and, therefore, he falls within the definition of workman under section 2 (s) of 1947 Act. He had served for a period of more than 240 days during the last 12 months counted from the date of termination of his service. It was obligatory for the respondents to have complied with the requirement of section 25f (a) and 25f (b) of '1947 Act' before terminating the services of the petitioner, which amounts to retrenchment under section 2 (00) of 1947 Act. His service has throughout been satisfactory and the reason given for termination of his service was extraneous and illegal. In the return filed by the respondents, the plea of the petitioner about the Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat being an 'industry' has been contested by the respondents. It has also been disputed that the petitioner is a workman. The respondents have stated that the service of the petitioner has been terminated in terms of the order of appointment. It is also the case of the respondents that once the selected candidates have become available, the petitioner's service had to be terminated by them. The petitioner cannot claim any precedence over the selected candidates. The termination of his service which has been brought about by the efflux of time and in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the order of appointment cannot be termed as retrenchment under Section 2 (00) of 1947 Act. The question, as to whether a Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti is an 'industry' stands concluded by a decision of this court in Chhaju Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and also by a decision of the Division Bench in Chuttan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to make a detailed discussion on this question. In his writ petition the petitioner has made detailed averments regarding the nature of duties being discharged by him. In para No. 9 of the writ petition he has stated that he does not have any supervisory/managerial functions. He does not have any power to appoint any of the employees of the Panchayat Samiti, he does not have the power to distribute work amongst the staff and he does not have any drawing and disbursing powers. These facts have not been denied specifically by the respondents and they have not stated in the return that the petitioner's duties are of administrative nature. I have gone through the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959. I find that the duties of a group Sachiv are by and large Clerical in nature. He is required to maintain the accounts, he is required to prepare the statements and he is required to prepare Registers etc. He is custodian of the record of the Panchayat. Such duties cannot, by any strech of imagination be treated as administrative in character and, therefore, having regard to the nature of the duties it can be said that the petitioner is doing Clerical work. That being so, he is covered by the definition of 'workman' as given in section 2 (s) of 1947 Act.
(3.) THE statement of the petitioner regarding his having worked for a period of 240 days has not been contested by the respondents. It has also not been denied by the respondents that no notice or pay in lieu thereof, as required by section 25f (a) was given to the petitioner. It has also not been disputed that no retrenchment compensation was offered or paid to the petitioner before his retrenchment from service. Thus, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25f is apparent on the fact of the impugned order dated, 19. 10. 82. THE termination by efflux of time or in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment, has been held to be retrenchment by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. N. Sundreenoney (3) and wider literal interpretation given to the word "retrenchment" used in section 2 (00) of 1947 Act has been approved by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclanation Corporation vs. Presiding Officer Thus, it is clear that the termination of the service of the petitioner amounts to 'retrenchment' under Section 2 (00) and the same has been brought about in violation of the mandatory requirements contained in section 25f of the Act of 1947. Violation of this provision has the effect of rendering an order of termination void. Even though, the petitioner may not have been selected for regular appointment, it was obligatory duty of the respondents to have complied with the requirements of section 25f. For this proposition reference may only be made to the case of Supreme Court in Santosh Gupta vs. State Bank of Patiala (5 ). For the reasons mentioned above, this petition deserves to be allowed & it is hereby allowed. The termination of the service of the petitioner by order dt. 19. 10. 1982 is declared void and it is hereby quashed. Since, the petitioner has been continuing in service on the basis of interim order passed by the court, no further order is necessary For his reinstatement. However, there shall be no break in the service of the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 19. 10. 1982 and he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. This order will,however, not prevent the respondents from passing any fresh order in relation to the petitioner in accordance with law. Costs made easy. .;