MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to this Full Bench finding conflict between the decision given in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anothers (1) and Kanti Lal and Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Anothers (2) and Sarada Panchayat Samiti III Gr. Teachers Association vs. State of Rajasthan & Anothers (3), in order to lay down the correct position regarding these IIIrd Grade Teachers working in various Panchayat Samities all over Rajasthan and the matter may be finally decided by a larger bench so that no conflict remains on the subject.
(2.) IT is not necessary to give the facts in details as the same are contained in the S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2709/1991 : Sarada Panchayat Samiti's case (supra ). IT will be worthwhile to recapitulate the past history of the litigation involved regarding these teachers. All these IIIrd Grade Teachers who were working in the various Panchayat Samities all over Rajasthan used to be employed by the Panchayat Samities for academic sessions on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 400/- per month and thereafter services of these teachers used to be terminated at the end of the academic session and they were not paid salary during the vacation period. Thereafter, they were again employed in the next academic session. Therefore, a batch of writ petitions first came to be filed before this Court in the case of Chanda Tamboli vs. The Panchayat Samiti, Mandal & Another These writ petitions came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 15. 6. 1988 and detailed instructions for this purpose were given to the Government which read as under : - "in the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and we direct that all the petitioners whose services have been terminated shall be entitled to one month's salary in the minimum pay scale admissible to the cadre with dearness allowance or additional dearness allowance admissible in accordance with law but will not be entitled to grade increment and they will be re-employed in the next academic session to continue till the regular selections take place (of course subject to availability of vacancies ). Amongst these class of persons if trained teachers are available then priority shall be given to the trained teachers. These teachers who are already serving shall be paid the minimum of pay scale admissible to the particular cadre concerned with dearness allowance or additional dearness allowance admissible according to law. They will continue till regular selections take place. They will not be entitled to any grade increments. However, they will be entitled to salary for the vacation period as well. The State Government is also directed to get the untrained teachers trained in view of the communication referred to above so that these lowly paid teachers may improve their prospects for the employment in phased programme. No orders as to costs. " The decision given in the case of Chanda Tamboli (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by other untrained teachers by filing a Special Leave Petition No. 1198/88 along with the writ petition filed by Ram Sukh and others. All these petitions were disposed of by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sukh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (5 ). Thereafter, some remaining batch of the writ petitions also came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kanti Lal and Others vs. The State of Raja & Others. (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge following the decision of Chanda Tamboli (supra) which was affirmed in the Special Leave Petition filed in the case of Ram Sukh (supra) disposed of this batch of writ petitions and observed as under : - "so far as these untrained teachers are concerned and who are still continuing in service, the Panchayat and Development Department is directed to obtain a list of these teachers from the respective Panchayat Samities and to prepare a phased programme for their training looking the vacancies available with them by 30. 04. 1990. This order will be subject to the condition that these persons who will got the training through the Government will have no right be kept in service if selected candidates by the Distt. Establishment Committee or trained candidates are made available to the Panchayat Samiti and are appointed by them. The training will be at the cost of the candidates who may be sent for training through the correspondence course and it will be imparted to only those who apply for it through the Panchayat Samiti concerned by 28th Feb. 1990. All arrears of the salary which are payable to such teachers should be by 31. 03. 1990. " Then, again some writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, in the case of Kalu Ram & Ors. and this came to be listed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide judgment dated 12. 4. 1991 allowed the writ petition and observed as under : - "in the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 11. 5. 1989, annexure p/3 to the writ petition is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner all consequential benefits including back wages for the period between his termination and re-appointment (excepting the period in which he himself did not work ). Parties shall bear their own costs. "
(3.) THIS judgment was given on the basis of the decision of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (6), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period created by the management in the circumstances would be sufficient for confirmation. The Hon'ble Chief Justice also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the case of U. P. Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association vs. Union of India and others (7), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed regularisation of services of the contingent paid staff in Income Tax Department working as Class IV employees for several years on daily wages basis. Thereafter, the remaining batch of writ petitions was argued before a learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge after referring to all these decisions including that of Kalu Ram (supra) dismissed the writ petition and distinguished the judgment of Kalu Ram on the ground that in the case of Kalu Ram the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sukh (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice which had directe bearing on the subject. ;