The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual employment offered on humanitarian grounds with terms and conditions that are not arbitrary or opposed to public policy is valid and enforceable.

1. - All these petitions have been filed for seeking direction to pay the minimum of the pay scale of Class IV employees and treat the petitioners as regular/permanent employees of the Department and further to quash Clauses 3 to 13 contained in the Agreement of their appointment. All the three petitions are identical involving the same question of law, thus, the same are disposed of by the common judgment treating Writ Petition No. 573/1998 as a leading case.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners had been employees of the Rajasthan Small Industries Ors. Limited and as the units where petitioners had been working, were closed, their services were terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all of them were paid the retrenchment allowances as provided under the Act. Large number of persons like petitioners were given an option of voluntary retirement and some of them had opted it and, thus, those who did not opt, stood retrenched. Petitioners preferred S.B.C.W.P. No. 186/1995, Rajasthan Laghu Udyog Spinning Mills Workers Union, Ladnu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , seeking the relief of absorption in other departments but as the petitioners were not entitled for absorption under any statutory rules, they could not get any relief and petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.9.97. The Government had earlier issued a Circular dated 24.12.94 for offering contractual employment for a period of five years on the terms and conditions incorporated in the Circular to the employees so retrenched. Petitioners accepted the said offer and entered into an agreement stipulating the said terms and conditions. Petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis for a period of five years or completion of fifty - eight years, whichever is earlier, on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement vide order dated 5.7.1975 (sic 1995 ?). After enjoying the benefit of the said agreement and appointment for about two and half years, these writ petitions have been filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that (i) petitioners cannot be deprived of their legitimate claim as provided under Article 30(d) of the Constitution and they are entitled for minimum of the pay scale of Class IV employees; (ii) they are entitled for regularisation on the posts as they are working thereon for more than two and half years; and (iii) the terms and conditions of the agreement, contained in Clauses 3 to 13, be quashed being oppressive and against the public policy. The relevant Clauses read as under:

"(1) The contractual appointment will be considered by the State Government as compassionate measure and retrenched employees would be eligible for employment purely on contract basis;

(2) The past services rendered in Industrial Ors. shall not be reckoned for any purpose in the present service of contractual appointment;

(3) Initial appointment on contractual basis shall be for a period of five years or till the retrenched employee attains the age of fifty eight years, whichever is earlier;

(4) Contract period may be renewed subject to the satisfactory working of the employee;

(5) The contractual emoluments shall be fixed considering the last emoluments drawn by the retrenched employee. However, his emoluments shall not exceed the emoluments last drawn by the employee at the time of retrenchment;

(6) The contract can be terminated by giving prior notice of one month from either side; and

(7) Retrenched employee may be engaged on contract on an equal or lower post held by him before retrenchment. In case he is engaged on a lower post, his emoluments drawn prior to retrenchment shall be protected.

4. The aforesaid conditions provide that it is a contractual employment offered to petitioners purely on humantarian ground and they were not entitled in law for the same. If the offer is acce