VYAS, J. - (1.) BY filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5/7/2000 and directing the respondents to fix him in the pay scale of UDC and few other ancillary reliefs.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 27/9/1977 (Annex. 1) as weaving helper in the Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Corporation - respondent no. 2 on consolidated wages @ 150/- pm. Later on, the said wages were increased from 150/- to 350/- in the year 1980, from 350/- to 500/- on 29/3/1982 then from 500/- to 750/-and at last from 27/4/1991 Rs. 1200/- was allowed as consolidated wages to the petitioner. When the services of the petitioner were not regularised though similarly situated persons were granted benefit of regularisation and pay scale, the petitioner directly preferred SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court and raised the plea that he has completed more than 18 years of service and similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with petitioner on different posts have been regularised and they were granted regular pay scale but same benefit has not been granted to the him. In the said SLP, the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution dismissed the SLP. The order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex. P/5. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of regularisation and regular pay scale because he was getting Rs. 1200/- consolidated wages, which was equivalent to pay of UDC therefore petitioner prayed that benefit of pay scale of UDC may be granted w. e. f. 1/4/1982. Further it was prayed by the petitioner that respondents may be directed to grant benefit of promotion while granting benefit of regularisation and fixation on the post of UDC w. e. f. 1/4/1982. Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, reply was filed and it was stated that respondents are running Woolen Carpet Training Centres at various places in Rajasthan subject to availability of grants sanctioned by the State Government. It was also stated that life of the centres are totally depends upon the availability of grant/sanction by the State Government and if no sanction is received to continue the centre, the centre is required to be closed down. While admitting fact of appointment of petitioner, it is stated in para 6 of the reply by the respondent that in condition no. (Ga) of Annex. P/2 and P/3, appointment orders, it was specifically mentioned that these appointments are only for Carpet Training Center and if the Government decides to stop the grant then automatically their services will come to an end. It is also pointed out that Rajasthan Galeecha Prashikshak Sangh raised the industrial dispute and reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and the Tribunal vide its judgment Annex. R/2/1 dated 9/10/1996 held that the Masters, Assistant Masters are not entitled for relief sought for. The said award of the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur was also challenged before the Jaipur Bench and initially interim order was passed but lateron said interim order was also vacated by this Court on 12/5/1997. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that similarly situated persons appointed in the respondent department on different posts on consolidated wages were regularised, it is stated that one Mohd. Hanif Usta was appointed in the Industries department, whereas, petitioner was appointed in `galeecha Training Center' on consolidated wages subject to condition that in case the State Government stops the sanction/grant then the services of the petitioner would automatically come to an end. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim his right at par with such persons. The crux of the contention of respondents in their reply is that due to non-availability of grant by the State Government, petitioner is not entitled for any regularization or for any other benefit of pay fixation.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, without any notice, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 5/7/2000, the petitioner filed application for amendment of writ petition and challenged the order of termination on the ground that he is working from last 23 years in the respondent department and getting Rs. 1200/- consolidated wages but without giving any notice or providing any opportunity of hearing, his services have been terminated, which is totally illegal. Though the said application for amendment of writ petition was opposed by the respondents, but this Court allowed the amendment application and petitioner filed amended writ petition and after considering the new facts and grounds raised in the amended writ petition, this Court vide order dated 21/7/2004 admitted the same. No reply was filed by the respondents to the amended writ petition. Petitioner filed additional affidavit on 27/11/2006 in which it was stated by him that the petitioner was working as weaving helper since 1977. After serving for about 23 years, the services were terminated on the ground that Government has not made available the funds for releasing salary to him, whereas, this ground is absolutely erroneous and is untenable because he was employee of Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited, which is a Government undertaking thus, it was more or less Government Department and respondent department is organization of Government, therefore, Government is having complete control over the respondent corporation known as Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited". In this additional affidavit it is stated by the petitioner that various persons working in the establishment like petitioner were transferred to various other centers and they are still continuing and getting regular pay scales after regularisation of services. In this connection he has invited attention of the Court towards an order passed on 1/9/1995, which is placed on record as Annex. A, whereby, one Shri Ram Kumar Gupta, who was holding the post of Senior Assistant has been promoted as Junior Accountant and transferred to Kota. His name appears at at serial no. 5 in Annex. A. With regard to one another person Shri Mohd. Hanif Usta, it is submitted that he was appointed along with petitioner but he is still continuing as State Government employee though he was appointed in Small Scale Industries Corporation. The petitioner has also placed on record Annex. `c', whereby, Mohd. Hanif Usta was transferred from DIC,bikaner to Rajasthali, Udaipur. Petitioner has also placed on record some more transfer orders of Mohd. Hanif Usta. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has also placed on record the seniority list of Junior Engineers published by the Corporation to show that the said Corporation is a Government Establishment and there are so many persons working substantively on different posts. He has also placed on record the seniority list of Class IV employees dated 17/7/2006, which is Annex. `g'. The petitioner has also placed on record order dated 16/6/1978 (Annex. H), whereby, appointments were made on the post of LDC in Small Scale Industries Department and for these appointments also a condition was imposed that their appointments is only for carpet training centers so long the Government accord grant-inaid. The petitioner has also placed on record Annex. `i' whereby, appointments were made on the post of Class IV employee and in their appointment order same condition was incorporated which is incorporated in the order of appointment of petitioner dated 29/3/1982 (Annex. 2), whereby the petitioner was granted consolidated wages of Rs. 500/- but they are still working on the post. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards condition `ga' mentioned in Annex. P/2 dated 29/3/1982, whereby, the petitioner was appointed. The condition `ga' reads as under: *** ;