AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, who were working as Ward-boy/Sweeper, it
is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been working on contract basis and were performing duties of the
said post for the entire day, however, by order dated 31 st January
2014 their services have been dispensed with on the ground that
cleaning arrangement has been given on contract to some other
persons by opening tender on 31.01.2014. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that other persons, namely Rajesh
Java and Vishesh Java, were allowed to continue while the
petitioners have been denied said benefit. It is submitted that they
could not have been replaced by another set of contractual
employees as held in the case of Mooli Devi Choudhary v. State of
Rajasthan - 2010 (4) WLC 334.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
contract of the petitioners had ended and thereafter contract had
been awarded to someone else and so far as petitioners are
concerned, both were working as part-time Sweepers, they had
been appointed on different dates and in view thereof, they could
not have filed joint writ petition. It is further submitted that no
right is created in their favour as they were part-time employees.
A look at the impugned order dated 31 st January 2014 shows
that the petitioners have been treated as ward-boy/sweeper by
the respondents themselves. Not only this, there is no mention
they were being being part-time employees. No reasons have
come forward as to why only two persons'' services were
dispensed with while others were allowed to continue. No reasons
have come forward as to why merely because some other cleaning
arrangement has been done on contract, services of the
petitioners were required to be dispensed with.
Apart from above, a look at the advertisement inviting
tender shows that the same was invited for places where there is
no other person working and it was in addition to the employees
who were already existing there. Thus, it is seen that there was no
occasion to dispense with services of the petitioner.
The order dated 31st January 2014 can not be said to have
been passed for bona fide reasons. The same is, therefore,
quashed and set aside. The petitioners would be entitled to be
reinstated and will also be entitled to all consequential benefits. If
there is any process of regularisation of the sweepers underway,
the petitioners shall also be considered for the said purpose along
with similarly situated sweepers.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.