Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2511 (RAJ)

Prakash Kanwar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-23

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "1. That the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 may kindly be declared illegal and quashed with all consequential benefits. 2. That the respondents may further be directed to pay regular pay scale of the post of LDC to the petitioner w.e.f. her initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits or in the alternative they may be directed to make payment of at least minimum wages or pay scales of the cadre of class III to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 3. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the Central Government, with the help of the State Government and with the object to uplift the socio and economic empowerment of women, commenced National Mission for Empowerment of Women in the Financial Year 2011-12. The object of the said Scheme was to bring convergence in the efforts through inter-sectoral co- ordination amongst different Ministries and programmes with the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) as a nodal agency for achieving holistic empowerment of women. The principal object and aim of the Central Government, while executing such collaboration with the State, was to achieve holistic empowerment through convergence of Schemes/Programmes of different Ministries/Departments of the Government of India as well as the State Government. The initiatives included Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP Scheme), one stop centers, women helpline etc. 3. The respondents, thus, introduced 'Mission Poorna Shakti' in Pali District through National Mission for Empowerment for Women, District Pali-Marwar. The purpose of Poorna Shakti Kendra was to provide services to women at grass-root levels through the village coordinators reaching out to the rural women. 4. The respondents issued advertisements on 28.12.2011 and 20.06.2012, inviting applications for appointment of Women Village Coordinators in 150 Gram Panchayats of Pali District. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement, and was thereafter, selected for being appointed as Women Village Coordinator on the basis of her merit. The petitioner continued to work on fixed wages of Rs.4,000/- per month for a fixed term, and her work was extended from time to time by the respondents without any interruption. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement, and was thereafter, selected for being appointed as Women Village Coordinator on the basis of her merit. The petitioner continued to work on fixed wages of Rs.4,000/- per month for a fixed term, and her work was extended from time to time by the respondents without any interruption. The bond for continuance of such work was executed periodically. The services of the petitioner were satisfactory and there is no dispute in regard thereto by the respondents. 5. The respondents, however, passed an order on 27.11.2017, whereby a decision was taken to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The sole ground taken by the respondents for dispensing with the services of the petitioner was the decision taken by the Central Government to discontinue the Mission Poorna Shakti run through National Mission for Empowerment of Women District Pali. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision to bring an end the Scheme i.e. Mission Poorna Shakti run through National Mission for Empowerment of Women District Pali, was without justification, as the project was not actually completed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the respondents are bringing the Scheme with a different name, i.e. 'Pradhan Mantri Mahila Shakti Kendra' for the period from 2017-18 to 2019-20. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the object of the newly approved/launched Scheme is absolutely identical to the existing Scheme/Project of Mission Poorna Shakti. It is also contended that Nodal Agency for running these Schemes/Projects is the same, and funding and budget for both the Schemes are same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner has rendered continuous service of about six years, and was thus, expecting that her services shall be continued by the respondents, as the services were otherwise satisfactory. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that for the socio-economic Empowerment of Women, Government of India had launched a Pilot Project in the name of National Mission for Empowerment of Women in 2011-12. The Pilot Project in the name of Mission Poorna Shakti in District Pali came into operation from 2011-12, and for that purpose, the petitioner was selected pursuant to the advertisements dated 28.12.2011 and 20.06.2012. 11. The Pilot Project in the name of Mission Poorna Shakti in District Pali came into operation from 2011-12, and for that purpose, the petitioner was selected pursuant to the advertisements dated 28.12.2011 and 20.06.2012. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner was rendering her services to a Pilot Project, namely, Mission Poorna Shakti, which was existing only in District Pali in the State of Rajasthan, and funding whereof was received by the Central Government only till September 2017, but since the Government of India has taken a decision for discontinuation of the Mission Poorna Shakti Project, the respondents are left with no option, but to discontinue the services of the petitioner in the Pilot Project. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents makes categorically a submission that no Scheme whatsoever is being launched either by the Central Government or the State Government at this stage till today, to replace the Scheme of Mission Poorna Shakti Project. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has thus, taken a categorical stand that the Mission Poorna Shakti Project has completely come to an end, and the petitioner is neither being replaced by another set of contractual employee, and nor being replaced by any set of regular employee. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is not a matter of merits of the petitioner, but it is a matter of the contract co-terminus with the Project/Scheme, which is well established by the documents brought on record. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the continuance of the petitioner would not be possible as the complete financial assistance was from the Central Government and since such assistance has been done away with w.e.f. September, 2017, therefore, the respondents are left with no other option, but to discontinue the services of the petitioner. 16. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner was rendering her services for the Project, namely, Mission Poorna Shakti, which was existing only in the District Pali in the State of Rajasthan and was completely funded and supported by the Central Government from 2011-12 to September 2017. 17. 16. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner was rendering her services for the Project, namely, Mission Poorna Shakti, which was existing only in the District Pali in the State of Rajasthan and was completely funded and supported by the Central Government from 2011-12 to September 2017. 17. The precedent law as laid down in various Apex Court judgments is very clear that if a contract is co-terminus with the Project or Scheme, and if such Project or Scheme comes to an end, then no right of such contractual employee could be protected. 18. This Court has rendered a judgment in the matter of Sampat Lal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11005/2017, decided on 16.01.2018, reiterating the same stand. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. v. Director General of Police, Aasam, reported in 2009 AIR SCW, 4291 in which the ratio is that the posts coming to an end co-terminus with the project are permissible. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that any preference to the employees in other scheme is not possible as the scheme comes with the strings attached from the NHM source i.e. Union of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further shown that for similar posts a judgment was rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Patwa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5508/2011) decided on 20.09.2011, the relevant portion of this judgment, reads as under : "1. Respondents will not replace petitioners by another set of contractual/ temporary employees either by direct contract or through placement agency. 2. Petitioners would be continued in service till BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued but subject to requirement of their services. If the required strength is reduced, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of petitioners but it should be after following principle of 'last come - first go' at the block level where any of the petitioner is working. Petitioners would be continued in service till BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued but subject to requirement of their services. If the required strength is reduced, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of petitioners but it should be after following principle of 'last come - first go' at the block level where any of the petitioner is working. In case of withdrawal of the scheme from a particular block, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of the petitioners/persons working in that block and in case of continuance of scheme in the block but with reduction of strength, principle of 'last come - first go' would be applied at that block. 3. As agreed by respondents, they will not to make appointments under NRHM pursuant to short term advertisement dated 6.9.2010, rather, they have agreed not to engage any one on contract basis by a direct contract or through placement agency. It can be only on 'job basis' and for which preference would be given to the existing persons if they are in position to undertake work on 'job basis'. 4. In future, if additional hands are required to undertake work of BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, the persons, who have been discontinued, would be given preference for appointment. 5. Petitioners, who have been taken under NRHM pursuant to interim order of this court, can be discontinued if additional hands are not required under NRHM as their continuance was pursuant to the interim order of this court only but, while doing so, respondents will take note of their previous engagement at the block level. If the BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued in his/ her block then such a candidate/petitioner would be considered based on principle of 'last come - first go'. If he is the person first appointed in comparison to other at the block level where the strength is reduced, then petitioner would be entitled to seek continuance on the principle of 'last come - first go'. 6. In future also, if there is further reduction in requirement of hands, respondents will apply the same formula of 'last come - first go' at the block level for discontinuance of surplus hands as has been given above." 8. 6. In future also, if there is further reduction in requirement of hands, respondents will apply the same formula of 'last come - first go' at the block level for discontinuance of surplus hands as has been given above." 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has however shown from the Annexure-1 dated 26.07.2017 that the financial sanction of the posts sanctioned has been withdrawn and the posts have been eliminated. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it is not a case where a contractual employees are being replaced by another set of contractual employees. Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the concerned scheme is being scaled down as other employees of other schemes are able to man the jobs to be done under this scheme. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this court towards the Annexure-2 dated 01.08.2017 whereby the alternate arrangement to the scheme was contemplated by the respondents. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the contractual employees under the Mukhyamantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna are being replaced by another employees. It is clear from the Annexure-1 that the posts have been de- sanctioned and thus, the scheme is being scaled down. The reason of scaling down is also pertinent as the respondents have categorically made out a case that these persons are no longer required as other schemes are covering the zone of functioning of the scheme of Mukhyamantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna. This Court also finds that the earlier order passed by this court at Jaipur Bench of this Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Patwa (Supra) was sufficient protection given by this Court to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioners cannot be given any protection over and above, the protection of not being replaced by any other of contractual employees. 11. Thus, the present petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents that until the scheme of the Mukhyamantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna is continuing and the number of seats are sanctioned, the persons for the purpose of scaling down shall be done away while strictly adhering to the principle of last come first go at the block level. The respondent shall also be required to re-asses the functioning zone of the Mukhyamantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna from time to time and at any juncture, if the zone of functioning of the Mukhyamantri BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Yojna is expanded and extended, the petitioners shall be given due preference strictly in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to their due benefits until the last day which they work." 19. In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, while dismissing this writ petition, this Court directs the State to take into consideration the skills acquired by the petitioner, as and when, any other similar work under a similar Scheme/Project is generated afresh, at the instance of the State Government or through the Central Government. Such consideration shall be made, looking into the six years experience of the petitioner sympathetically in District Pali subject to the petitioner's eligibility/suitability otherwise for the Project concerned. The respondents shall be required to give the payment to the petitioner till the period, the petitioner has actually discharged her services in the concerned Project/Scheme, within a period of 60 days.