Honble MADAN, J. – The petitioner who was appointed as L.D.C. on temporary basis in the office of Director, Gram Vikas and Panchayatraj Department in Panchayat Samiti, Atru on daily wages, had last served in the capacity of Junior Accountant in the said Panchayat Samiti. He has challenged the impugned order of termination, dated 24.5.1989 by way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of Consti-

tution of India on the ground that the impugned retrenchment of the petitioner from service could not be done without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act). The short question which arises for consideration of the court in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner who is a temporary appointee of the Panchayat Samiti and appointed for working in a particular project, can claim benefit of regularisation in service on completion of the Project on the ground that he had completed 240 days of service as on the date termination order is passed?

(2). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on the post of L.D.C. on 22.6.1988 vide Annexure 1. This appointment of the petitioner was done by respondent No. 2, i.e., Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Atru District Kota against a confirmed vacancy. On 24.3.1989 respondent No. 1, i.e., the Director and Special Administration Secretary, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat raj Deptt. Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a circular containing administration guidelines vide Annexure 2, dated 24.3.1989 to various Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan, specifically prohibiting Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads from appointing any person on temporary basis or on daily wages basis on the ground that it is not proper to appoint the candidates on temporary basis since when their services are terminated by the department, they move to the High Court by filing writ petitions and directions are issued by the High Court to take them back to service which results in enormous financial constraint to the department and hence appointments in future should be made only against confirmed vacancies, since otherwise any termination of an employee would attract the penal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, i.e. Sec. 25 B and F of the Act. It was further directed by the said circular that those persons who were already serving on temporary basis, their termination should not be done without resort to the provisions of Sec. 25 F of the Act. That in view of the aforesaid directions issued by the State Government contained in Circular dated 24.3.1989 as referred to above, services of the petitioner were terminated by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Atru (respondent No.2) vide impugned order dated 24th May, 1989 vide Annex. 3. It is the said impugned order of termination which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the various grounds inter alia (1) that the termination of the services of the petitioner has been brought about without following the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was appointed after due selection on the basis of interview, (2) the impugned Circular, dated 24.3.89 confers legal right on the petitioner to be considered for regular appointment through District Establishment Committee (3), that there has been violation of directions issued by the respondent in case of the petitioner by not having resort to the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act as the same has not been complied with hence the order of termination of service of the petitioner is illegal and deserves to be quashed, (4) that no show cause notice was served on the petitioner prior to termination of his service resulting in gross injustice and (5) the order of termination amounts to retrenchment which could only be done after compliance with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act.

(3). In the reply to show cause notice filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document