Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) THIS intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dt. 18.09.2012, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) for regularization of his services, was dismissed. However, it was observed by the Single. Bench that this order shall not come in the way of the family of the appellant seeking legal recourse for any benefits, to which they would be entitled. The appellant was appointed as LDC in the Law Commission vide order dt. 28.04.1993 (Annexure -1) on temporary (ad hoc) basis for a period of two months. Later this period had been extended periodically. Vide order dt. 12.01.1994 (Annexure -2), it was extended till 28.02.1994. The appellant was transferred to the office of Administrator General & Official Trustee, State of Rajasthan vide order dt. 21.03.1994 on his application dt. 19.03.1994 (Annexure -R/1). Vide order dt. 17.12.1999, the services of the appellant were extended upto 31.12.1999 on the condition that his services will be terminated immediately after 31.12.1999, in case he will not pass the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The appellant could not pass the aforesaid examination and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 514/2000, wherein the Single Bench, vide order dt. 11.02.2000, had directed to maintain status quo regarding his services.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as the appellant had continued in service for a period of 17 years, he was entitled to regularization. It is also contended that the appellant had expired during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives were impleaded in his place. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has relied upon judgments in the case of Executive Engineer, I & P.H. Division Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. vs. Smt. Judhya Devi w/o. late Shri Shesh Ram, H.P., 2013 (1) SLR 13 (H.P.), Smt. Maina Devi vs. Commissioner (Personnel), Jaipur Nagar Nigam & Ors.,, 2012(2) WLC (Raj.) 195, Gaurav Pacdhaury vs. State of U.P. & Ors., : 2011(131) FLR 712, Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs. Union of India & Am., : (2012) 7 SCC 757, Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., : 2009 (3) SLR 628, Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,, 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 434, and State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Dalel Singh,, 2012 (3) SLR 326 (Pb. & Hry.). Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State -respondents has submitted that the appellant had been appointed only on temporary basis in the Law Commission and upon dissolution of the Law Commission, the post of LDC stood abolished. He had continued subsequently till the regular appointment as a stopgap arrangement and hence could not claim regularization.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.;