Veera Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

The instant writ petition is the second round of litigation in which the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.4) passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chouhtan whereby the petitioner was terminated from service after giving one month''s notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act.

As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employees on daily rated basis in the year 1989 but he was not allowed regular pay scale of Class IVth employee, therefore, for grant of regular pay and regularization SBCWP No. 550/1994 was preferred by the petitioner in the year 1994, in which vide order dated 26.5.1995 the respondents were directed to pay minimum of pay scale to the petitioner for the post of Class IV employee and further a direction was issued to consider his case for regularization in service on the post of Class IV employee. Against the said judgment, the respondent department preferred DBSAW No. 737/1995, but the Division Bench of this Court dismissed that special appeal vide judgment dated 26.8.1996. The State Government further preferred SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court but the special leave to appeal No. 25183/1996 filed against the judgment of Division Bench was also dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 8.10.1999.

After dismissal of the special leave to appeal filed by the respondent-State against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner preferred SB Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 92/2000 in which notices were issued and in reply filed by the respondents on 17.9.2000 an order dated 8.9.2000 was annexed whereby the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 was allowed w.e.f. 16.8.1994 while regularizing the services of the petitioner and further allowed the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 w.e.f. 1.9.1996. It is very strange that after passing aforesaid order on 8.9.2000 for regularization and granting pay scale, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti again issued notice to the petitioner on 6.12.2000 whereby the services of the petitioner were again terminated while observing ground of public interest.

In this petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Chauhtan, District Barmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that notice dated 6.12.2000 is patently illegal notice because after marathon of litigation, the services of the petitioner were regularized and he was granted regular pay scale in pursuance of direction issued by this Court, therefore, when petitioner''s services were already regularized in compliance of order passed by this Court then there was no question to apply the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act because to terminate a regular employee, the respondents were under obligation to take recourse to of disciplinary proceedings, if any misconduct was committed by the petitioner, but in very casual manner while giving one month notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act that too without compensating, the services of the petitioner were terminated in the grab of public interest, therefore, the action of the respondents was totally unconstitutional.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that on the one hand, the petitioner''s services were regularized and regular pay scale was allowed w.e.f. 1994 in compliance of the judgment rendered by this Court and on the other hand, a notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was issued to terminate the services of the petitioner, which is not permissible under the Law, therefore, the notice dated 6.12.2000 deserves to be quashed and respondents are under obligation to take petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that due to non-availability of vacancy and abolition of post, the services of the petitioner were terminated after making compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned notice because the petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for the reason that he was initially appointed on daily rated basis and pay scale was allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court, therefore, respondents were having, but he written statement allowed pay scale in terms of the order passed by this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order dated 26.5.1995 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 550/1994, which reads as under:

"The petition was heard alongwith a bunch of similar cases.

The case law on the point has been discussed in details in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/94 (Anskalin Samj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara v. State and Others.)

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the petitioner is discharging duties of a full time servant.

The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner minimum pay in the lowest pay scale applicable to the post of regular Peon from the date of filing of the petition and consider regularization of his services in the light of directions made in order being passed today in S.B. C.W. Petition No. 3453/94 (Anskalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara v. State and Others), decided on 26, 1995. The relief will be given only of the petitioner was in service on the date of filing of the petition. No order as to costs."

The above order was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave to appeal filed by the State Government, therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge became final. It is also emerges from the facts that in compliance of the above judgment an order dated 8.9.2000 was passed, which reads as under:

It is very strange that in spite of above order for granting regular pay scale and treating the petitioner as regular employee the respondents again issued notice of termination to the petitioner on 6.12.2000 just after passing above order dated 8.9.2000 whereby notice for one month under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was given and it was ordered that after expiry of one month from 6.12.2000 your services will come to an end. In my view, the impugned notice is arbitrary and unconstitutional because on the one hand, in compliance of the order passed by this Court the petitioner was reinstated and regular pay scale was granted to him with continuity of regular service from 16.8.1994 and on the other hand, one months notice was given to terminate the services that too without any compensation as per Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act; whereby under the grab of public interest, the petitioner''s services were terminated, in my opinion such an action of respondents is not permissible under the law. More so, it is a case in which the respondent Vikas Adhikari, Chautan has acted in arbitrary manner and committed a patent error of law to terminate the services of the petitioner because in compliance of order passed by this Court, his services were treated as regular from 16.8.1995 vide order dated 8.9.2000. As per basic principle of law, the services of regular employee cannot be dispensed with while giving defective notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act that too without compensation. The regular employee can be dismissed or removed from service on account of misconduct for which disciplinary action is condition precedent, therefore, the notice impugned dated 6.12.2000 is in violation of fundamental principle of law and also in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act because even it is presumed that respondents were having jurisdiction to terminate the services of the petitioner under the I.D. Act, then also, the notice Annex.4 dated 6.12.2000 is completely in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act on the ground that no compensation was given to the petitioner along with notice for termination, which is mandatory under Section 25F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned notice of termination dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.4) is in contravention of basic principle of law.

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 6.12.2000 (Annex.4) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits but the petitioner shall be entitled for 25% of the back wages only because he has not worked on the post of Class IV from the date of termination to the date of this judgment.