JUDGEMENT
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. -
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1995 with the prayer that respondents be directed to pay to him pay and allowances applicable to the post of Chowkidar with effect from the date of his initial appointment and pay alongwith interest and further pray for regularise the services of petitioner on the post of Class IV employee (Chowkidar) and giving him benefits.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as a Class-IV employee vide order dated 30.1.1990 with Rajasthan School of Arts, Kishangarh, Jaipur and he has been continuously discharging the duties since then. Petitioner was at the time of his appointment registered with Employment Exchange, therefore, his appointment should be considered as regular. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards order dated dated 18.7.1994 showing that petitioner was discharging the duties of Chowkidar. It is contended that till date petitioner being paid a fix amount of Rs.832/- per month and this is nothing but exploiting of an poor employee. The payment of salary on a fixed amount to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 39 (d) of Constitution of India. It is submitted that Government of India has taken a policy decision to regularise services of employees, who have continued with them for more than 10 years without intervention of Court orders in terms of judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary Vs. Uma Devi : 2006 (4) SCC, 1. It is contended that petitioner's services were in the meantime illegally terminated by order dated 29.7.1999. However, he filed writ petition challenging the same i.e. SBCWP No.4328/99. The operation of termination order dated 29.7.1999 was stayed vide order dated 25.10.1999 and ultimately the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.9.2007 with liberty to respondents to act in accordance with law. Till any such order was passed, petitioner was directed to continue in service. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have not so far passed any fresh order thereafter and petitioner has been continued in service. Petitioner has thus completed more than 19 years of service with the respondents. It is, therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has been engaged on daily wages basis, therefore, it does not confer any right on him for regular salary or for regularisation. It is contended that engagement of petitioner was on temporary basis. He cannot be given benefit of regular pay scale or regularisation because he accepted the appointment fully knowing that such appointment on daily wages basis.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and considered the fact that initial appointment of the petitioner was made on 30.1.1990 and he was continued till 29.7.1999, which order was stayed by this Court in his writ petition vide order dated 25.10.1999 and thereafter when the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2007 respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in service and if necessary, pass fresh order, but so far no fresh order for discontinuing him from service has been passed.
Having regard to the facts of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider case of petitioner for regularisation in recently promulgated scheme by the State Government for that purpose because taking the period from 30.1.1999 and 29.7.1999 and thereafter from 3.9.2007 when the writ petition was decided till now, petitioner has completed more than 19 years of service without there being any interim order of this Court or of any other Court. At this stage, if petitioner would be throughout of employment, it would be too harsh upon him. The respondents are directed to pass necessary order within a period of six months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before them.mukrsh_c_
;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.