- (1.) The petitioner Jagdish Prasad Sharma in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17-12-2002 passed by the Municipal Board, Pokaran whereby he was removed from service. In fact, the order dated 17-12-2002 is a notice, which was served upon the petitioner along with cheque for salary of one month in compliance of the direction issued to the Municipal Board by Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Jodhpur.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector on daily wage muster rolls basis with the Municipal Board, Pokaran by order dated 2-12-1992. His services were terminated w.e.f. 1-1-1996. The appropriate Government made a reference as to legality of his removal from service to Labour Court, Jodhpur. The Labour Court, Jodhpur upon adjudication of dispute passed an award on 23-10-2002 holding removal of the petitioner to be illegal and directed the respondents to reinstate him in service with 40% back wages. According to the petitioner, when he approached the Municipal Board, Pokaran for compliance of the award, he was compelled to forego the back wages under threat that if he did not do so, the Municipal Board would file the writ petition against the award. Since the petitioner was out of employment and in dire need of service, he accepted this unreasonable condition and the Municipal Board by its order dated 7-11-2002 reinstated him in service in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 of Asstt. Sanitary Inspector with continuity in service, but it was directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages on account of compromise arrived at between the parties. A copy of this order was also endorsed to the Director, Local Bodies as well as to the Dy. Director (Regional) Local Self Department, Jodhpur. The Dy. Director (Regional) Local Self Department, Jodhpur by his letter dated 11-12-2002 raised an objection as to how the Municipal Board has given appointment to the petitioner in regular pay scale/regular basis. It was conveyed that steps be taken to cancel the appointment order and explanation of the officials of the Board was called for as to why they did not take steps to challenge the award of the learned Labour Court and relevant files were also summoned. It was in this background that the order of removal of the petitioner dated 17-12-2002 was passed, which is under challenge in this present proceedings.
(3.) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. Their contention is that the petitioner was working on daily wages basis and the learned labour Court in its award had directed his reinstatement as such with 40% of the back wages. It was nowhere directed that he should be appointed in regular pay scale and that too on the post of Asstt. Sanitary Inspector. It was a case of undue favour and the Executive Officer has given such appointment to the petitioner beyond the directions contained in the award and, therefore, the explanation was rightly called for. It has been submitted that the Executive Officer acted beyond his competence in appointing the petitioner on the post of Asstt. Sanitary Inspector on regular basis, which could be made only by regular mode of recruitment. The petitioner was entitled to reinstatement on daily wage basis with only 40% of the back wages. It has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.;