- (1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed to immediately comply with the order dated February 2,1990, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898 of 1989 Babu Khan v. The State of Rajasthan.
(2.) The petitioner served with the respondents for more than 240 days, but his services were terminated without following the procedure provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner, aggrieved with the order terminating his services, preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898 of 1989 (Babu Khan v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr.). That writ petition was contested by the respondents and ultimately, after hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated February 2, 1990. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: The writ petition is allowed and the Collector (Rehabilitation), Churu, is directed to reinstate the petitioner from the date of the termination of his services with all consequential benefits. It may be made clear that there is no dispute that the petitioner had been working as a Lower Division Clerk and on the principle of 'equalpay for equal work', he is entitled to the same salary as is payable to a Lower Division Clerk. Therefore, I further direct that on his reinstatement, he shall be fixed in the pay scale of L.D.C. at the lowest from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 17.3.1989. The respondents, dissatisfied with the judgment dated February 2,1990, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898 of 1989 Babu Khan v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. preferred a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 473 of 1991 The State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Babu Khan. That appeal camp-up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench, by its judgment dated January 13,1992, dismissed the appeal, filed by the State, after considering it on merit with the following observation: Having perused the impugned order and the record of the case we are agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had completed a period of 240 days service in pursuance of the order Annexure.1. The learned Single Judge has, also, held that the initial appointment continued after the completion of 240 days and even if subsequent order is not taken into consideration, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reasoned order, passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The Special Appeal is dismissed.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.;