- (1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition against the termination of their services on the post of Computer Assistant.
(2.) BOTH the learned counsels at bar submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court of in the case of Damodar Prasad Meena V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. - SBCWP No.1702/2010 decided on 13.3.2014 in which this court held as under: "23. It is true that the present petitioners viz. Computer Operators with machines, are not working as Teachers in the projects like 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' or 'Kastoorba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya' or like Vidhya - Mitra, but conceptually there is little difference in the employment of the present petitioners as Computer Operators with machines, involved in the present writ petitions and the Teachers or the Vidhyarthi -Mitra, involved in those case -laws. In a way, the present petitioners, who had to buy their own machines (computers, equipment and printers) only to get such employment on contractual basis after investing their own money, which for poor people, it could be termed as a big investment and some of them, as stated by the learned counsel for th petitioners, even borrowed funds to manage to buy these equipments, so that they could get the monthly fixed honorarium of their contractual employment as Computer Operators with machine, stand on a better footing in comparison with those teachers who at least were not required to make any initial investment to get such employment. 24. The pitiable plight of the unemployment and the poverty, in our country, in which these young people sought employment from the State, and were only employed on annual contract basis, the change of the policy by the State Government in these circumstances, may be for bonafide reasons, seeking to throw them out of their contractual employment, taking a narrow and only legalistic approach like the period of contract being over and thus no right vested in them, can only be said to be ruthless, to say the least. 25. While this Court is aware that the Court cannot tread on the path of policy making, which is the sole domain of the State Government but at the same time, the Court also cannot permit the arbitrary policy decisions to shake and jerk the root of employment of such contractual persons who have hardly any choice in the matter, to take such contractual employment on the dictated terms, without any assurance of their continuity of employment or guarantee of employment even though they are supposed to work for the scheme which is enacted by the Parliament with the sole and avowed purpose of providing guaranteed employment to the persons in the rural area. What more conflict and contradiction of the avowed objectives of enactment and the implementation of the policies of the State Government can be there, if not the present case in hand. 26. In these circumstance, the Court can only expect the respondent - State to come out with a comprehensive, fair and uniform policy decision in this regard, which could take care not only of the requirements of the State to provide continuous supply of such Computer Operators with machines and for which no exception can be taken to the policy decision of the State Government to employ such persons through specified companies, which according to the State Government have large resources available for providing such services to the State Government, but such policy decision may also take care of the advantage and benefit which the persons like the present set of petitioners can provide and also the up -gradation of their machines, if required, can be provided either by the petitioners themselves or by the State or through such contracted companies to provide such support services, as the case may be. But, since these all are essentially various aspects of policy decisions, this Court cannot and, therefore, will not dictate the terms in this regard, but it certainly deserves to be said that the change of policy decision taken by the State Government as is on record vide Annex.6 dated 10.02.2010, cannot be said to be a comprehensive and fair policy decision. 27. Therefore, the State is now required to take a comprehensive and fair policy decision in this regard. Till that is done, the interest of the present petitioners is required to be safeguarded. In view of the undisputed position that these petitioners employed on contractual basis in the year 2009, about 5 years back, have continued in such contractual employment extended from time to time up to 28.02.2010 and thereafter under the interim orders of this Court, they deserve to be continued as such till such comprehensive policy decision is taken by the State Government, which can consider all the aforesaid and other related aspects of the matter and earlier such a comprehensive policy decision is taken, the better it is for both, the petitioners and the State, so that a clarity in the employment of the present petitioners and others is achieved. Though no time frame for this purpose can be fixed, it would be appropriate and opportune, if such a comprehensive policy decision for engagement of Computer Operators is taken by the State Government, within a period of one year from now. The interim orders in favour of petitioners, shall continue till such decision is taken by the State Government. 28. The second limb of the argument taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners about the monthly honorarium of Rs.6,500/ -, presently being paid to the petitioners as a package, which was also said to be contrary to Clause 5 of the Agreement itself, which provided for annual increase of 10% also is left for the State Government to be decided. In view of the fact that the period of the contract itself was over and the impugned communication filed with the second stay petition by the petitioners dated 16.01.2012 (Annex.A/3), provides for the package limit of Rs.6,500/ - monthly honorarium, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to quash that order at this stage as the fixation of such monthly honorarium, is also governed by several factors like availability of funds, number of such persons working, requirement of the State Government and the availability such Computer Operators through different agencies, as aforesaid. Therefore, the State Government is expected to take a decision in this regard also while framing the aforesaid policy, as directed. However, till then no recovery of alleged excess already paid to such Computer Operators, as directed in the said communication daetd 16.01.2012 shall be made. 29. With these observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No orders as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the respondents as also to the Chief Secretary of the State Government, forthwith." Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;