Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No. 6543/2009 - Smt. Anil and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. The petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (ANM) after being trained as Health Workers (Female) conducted by the Rajasthan Nursing Council vide order Annex. 1 dtd. 14.12.2003 on monthly fixed payment of Rs. 3500/ - by the respondent - Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department of Government of Rajasthan. While they were working as such, the respondent - Department appears to have taken a decision on 7.10.2006 for hiring of the additional ANM under the RCH Programme (Rehabilitation Child Health) through the specified service agency/NGO on service contract basis and even existing ANMs like the present petitioners on the expiry of their present contractual term were required to be recruited through such placement agency, in case their services were to be extended for future period and the contract was thus sought to be executed by the petitioners and other likes for working in the aforesaid Scheme under the flagship Scheme of the Government of India, known as National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The petitioner apprehending the termination of their contractual services and also certain terms in such contract which according to them were adverse to them, approached this Court by way of present set of writ petitions and while issuing notices to the respondents, the coordinate bench of this Court granted interim protection to the petitioners by directing the respondents not to insist upon the execution of the fresh annual contracts by the petitioners. The petitioners have been admittedly continued in the said position of ANMs since then and long period of almost 11 years has passed by now and irrespective of execution of fresh annual contract, which in one case was stated to have been executed by Smt. Saroj Devi in SBCWP No. 10517/2010. The said contract is said to have been executed by the petitioner on 16.9.2009. Irrespective of such execution of contract, the petitioners have continued in such position uptill now.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.S. Chaudhary has urged that the petitioners had been duly trained for the aforesaid job of ANMs and have continued for a long period of 10 to 11 years in the respondent - Medical and Health Department and the Scheme in question, namely, RCH/NRHM are continuing even now and therefore, the insistence of the respondent - Department upon the petitioner to execute the fresh annual contracts was not only unfair labour practice but was wholly uncalled for and the same was in fact intended to push out the petitioners from the said job as per the discretion of the respondents without any assurance of continuity of employment. He also submitted that recently, this Court in the case of Damodar Prasad Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - SBCWP No. 1702/010 decided on 13.3.2014 while dealing with the similar case of 'Computer Operators with Machine' has allowed such writ petitions and the respondent - State has been directed to continue such Computer Operators until the regular selection process is held and the State Government has been asked to make a comprehensive and fair policy for their employment in such cases.;