Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2563 (RAJ)

Faily Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-23

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2005
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-That the instant writ petition is directed against the termination order dated 16.01.2001 and the petitioners have claimed reinstatement with consequential benefits alongwith arrears of salary of the 17 months duty period. 2. Briefly, stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Sayees after being interviewed in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the department on contract basis of Rs. 1,800/-per month vide order dated 13.03.1997 for a period of six months. The said period of service was extended from time to time and ultimately an order was passed on 16.01.2001 whereby their contract of service came to an end for want of receipt of the sanction. 3. The petitioners have submitted in the writ petition that there were/are 127 posts of Sayees in the department, out of which 83 were filled and 81 Sayees were working at the time of termination of the services of the petitioners. Subsequently also the sanction for extension of the term was received and further sanction of payment of salary was also received by the respondents vide order dated 19.04.2002 and 14.06.2002 respectively. At the time of issuance of the sanction order on 14.06.2002, the contract amount was increased from 01.05.2002 as Rs. 2,550/-per month 4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the contractual appointment confer no right. No specific reply was filed to the aforesaid fact of number of posts and filling of the posts and picking the petitioners only for termination for the reason of want of sanction. It has also not been specified after receipt of sanction, why the petitioners have not been called back. 5. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply and categorically stated that they are treated still in the total strength of Sayees working in the department and further that 81 Sayees, who are similarly situated are still working for which the respondents have given financial sanction till further orders. 6. The submission, of the Counsel for the petitioners, is that there is no justification for termination of their services and the termination is arbitrary whereas submission of learned Counsel, for the respondents, is that contractual appointment does not confer any right and the respondents were within their right to terminate the services of petitioners as no sanction was received. 7. The submission, of the Counsel for the petitioners, is that there is no justification for termination of their services and the termination is arbitrary whereas submission of learned Counsel, for the respondents, is that contractual appointment does not confer any right and the respondents were within their right to terminate the services of petitioners as no sanction was received. 7. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the impugned order and record of the case. 8. I am of the view that the respondents ought to have waited for the financial sanction which has been subsequently issued as detailed out here in above. The respondents ought to have further called the petitioners back on receipt of the financial sanction as their termination of service was mainly based on the want of sanction. I am of the further view that there is no justification for termination of the services of the petitioners during the continuation of services of similarly situated Sayees and the same is thus discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore, order of termination is liable to be set-aside being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of termination is set-aside. The petitioners are reinstated back in the service with all consequential benefits. The respondents are further directed to make the payment of salary to the petitioners of 17 months of duty period. 10. As regards regularisation and grant of regular pay scale, it will be open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be disposed of within another one month. 11. Costs made easy