Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 88 (RAJ)

Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1991-01-24

D.L.MEHTA

body1991
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Accountability is the fundamental signature of the Constitution of India, particularly, in relation to the services of the persons who are adorning the chairs without taking note of their duties. 3. This is a case, in which the notices for the disposal of the writ petition were served on 16th June, 1988. The Government Advocate appeared on 26th June, 1988, and the directions were given that the State should file the reply otherwise the case shall be disposed-of on 28.3.1989. The case was listed for final disposal before the Division Bench, and the case was heard there-after. However, because of the change of the Bench, the directions were given on 21.11.1989, that the case be released from part heard cases and the same may be put-up before the regular bench. Thus, the Government, got the additional chance for filing reply. However, it has not been availed. On 5th November, 1990, a further prayer was made for filing the reply and my brother Justice Calla, gave last opprtunity to the State on the prayer made by Mr.K.N.Garg, and the case was adjourned for 4 (four) weeks. Now we are in the year 1991. Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the State, submits that the case may be adjourned. Mr. Kaushik, further submits that it is a case in which the officers of the department, were not at all careful. However, he submits that in the interest of justice further last opportunity should be given. 4. Article 51-A, and Chapter IV-A, of the Constitution of India, cast duty on the citizens to be the watch dogs to see that the State Government, and its officers perform their duties faithfully and sincerely and if they fail to do so, it gives a cause of action to the citizens to come against the State or its officers. 5. Apart from that one must not forgot the provisions of Article 37 of the, Constitution of India, Chapter III of the Constitution of India, relating to the fundamental rights. It directs the issuance of injunction against the State, not to do a particular act, which may infringe the fundamental rights. Part IV of the Constitution relating to the directive principles of the State policy are not enforceable by any court. It directs the issuance of injunction against the State, not to do a particular act, which may infringe the fundamental rights. Part IV of the Constitution relating to the directive principles of the State policy are not enforceable by any court. However, one must not forget that the directive principle is a mandate to the State to enforce them within a reasonable time. The State may take as much time as is necessary for the enforcement of the directive principles. However, the State cannot say that we will never enforce the directive principles. It will not be out of place here to mention that under Article 37, the important part is 'the principles therein laid-down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State, to apply these principles in making the laws'. Article 39-D, provides that there is a equal pay for equal work for both men and women. It will not be out of place here to mention that the word 'fundamental' used in Article 37, is of a great significance and the positive act, which is to be done under Chapter IV is fundamental in the governance of the country. 6. I will not like to go into the details, however, one thing can be said or can be argued that once the fundamental observance of the Government, has been enforced, the State should not ordinarily be allowed to retrace from that position, as the fundamental is the ground work and the foundation of the Constitution and on the policies of the fundamental of the directive principles, the Constitution stand. Democracy cannot survive unless the doctrine of accountability is enforced. It is a separate matter that the elected representatives are accountable to the public and the officers of the State are also accountable to the executives and the Judges are also accountable to the society and it is the duty of the Judge, not to represent a class to which he belongs prior to taking oath but to represent the oath of the Constitution which is fundamental in the governance of the country and for that accountability he must be prepared to face the challenges. In fact, the litigants are the Judges and they can speak about the system of delivery of justice and they should not be allowed to have the views that the Courts are only meant for the haves. There cannot be equal opportunity amongst unequals. If the equal opportunities are provided amongst unequals and it will lead to the struggle of class war, it will increase the power of the few at the costs of the public at large. The need of the society is that the Government, must be an active Government and an active means the Government, which enforced the directive principles of Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, and really, performs the duty by implementing the fundamental in the governance of the Country. 7. It is a case in which the petitioner has come with a prayer that his termination order dated 7.4.1988, (Annexure-3) may be quashed. The second prayer of the petitioner is that he is entitled for equal pay for equal work. The petitioner is a daily wages earner. From the perusal of the writ petition, it seems that he is a person who falls within the category of the weaker section of the society. 8. An adjournment for one and half years and a further prayer for adjournment means the State Government, does not want early disposal of this case. The State Government, will take the matter seriously and will take disciplinary action against the officer in-charge of the case, who is not performing his duties faithfully and sincerely. I, request the Chief Secretary, to look into the matter personally and to take necessary action against the officer, who is not discharging his duties faithfully and sincerely and by not filing the reply in the case. Non-filing of the reply is a gross negligence in the discharge of the duties. Generally, adverse orders are passed as the cases are not pleaded properly and the persons not pleading are responsible for the decrees passed against the State. If the State Government, does not file the reply, does not contest the case then the State will have to face the burns of the decrees. Generally, adverse orders are passed as the cases are not pleaded properly and the persons not pleading are responsible for the decrees passed against the State. If the State Government, does not file the reply, does not contest the case then the State will have to face the burns of the decrees. Realty, the executives is not facing the burns but the tax-payers are facing the burns and they should come before the Court and ask that the decretal amount should be realised from the person of the officer, who is negligent in the discharge of the duties. In the instant case, the petitioner has come with a case that he was appointed as chowkidar, vide order dated 31.8.1987, on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 14/- per day. He has produced the photostat copy of the order (Annexure-1), and he continuously worked on daily wages basis upto 6.4.1988, he was asked not to sign in the attendance register and he was not allowed to work and he was also told that his services have been terminated. He produced the letter (Annexure-3). In this letter, it has been mentioned that on account of departmental instructions, the services of the petitioner is terminated with immediate effect. Thus, without giving one month's notice pay and compensation to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 9. The petitioner has moved an application under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and submitted that he has a right to live. The right to live includes the right to a decent living and the State Government, is duty bound to see that the directive principles are applied or not and where-ever applies, they are continued in one form or the other. In the instant case, the petitioner is a poor person and it is the duty of the State Government, to follow the provisions of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, and to see that the fundamental in the governance of the country are fulfilled. The petitioner cannot get any relief under Section 25-F of the Act, because he has not completed 240 days service. However, he can get relief under Section 25-H of the I.D.Act, 1947. The petitioner cannot get any relief under Section 25-F of the Act, because he has not completed 240 days service. However, he can get relief under Section 25-H of the I.D.Act, 1947. It is, therefore, directed that the State Government, should see that if any person has been appointed subsequently then he has a right to be considered for appointment and the respondents are directed to see that if any person has been appointed subsequently after the date of termination then the preferential treatment should be given to the petitioner and he shall be appointed within 3 months. Apart from that, Article 21, read with Article 37 and Article 39 of the Constitution of India, directs the State to pass a further order that a person who is not in position to get employment any-where else should not be thrown-out in case, the employment is available with the State Government, and he should be given employment. 10. In the result, writ petition is accepted. The State Government is directed to give appointment to the petitioner within 3 months from today. 11. The writ petition is disposed-of as indicated above. 12. No order as to costs. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for compliance of the order of this Court. The Chief Secretary, is also directed to submit the compliance report of this order before this court.Petition accepted. *******