LexRAJENDRA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF RATASTHAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
}
A
RATENDRA AND OJ'HERS
v.
).--
STATE OF RATASTHAN AND OTHERS
FEBRUARY 5, 1999
B
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
~
Service Law .--Regularisation/Absorption :
_,,
Temporary Posts-Project/Scheme coming to an e11d-No11- availability
c of work/funds-f'osts abolished-Services tem1i11ated-Termi11atio11 chat-
le11ged-Absorptio11/Regularisation claimed-Held, employer cannot by a writ
of mandamus be directed to continue employment of such terminated tern-
porary employees-{Rajasthan) State Rural Development Agency Employees
Service Regulation, 1983.
D
Service law-Abolition of posts on need coming to an end-District
Rural Development Agencies implemellting government schemes-Agencies
having independellt entity-Complete funding by State Government-Govern-
ment abolishing certain posts in the agencies 011 the recommendation of an
Expert Committee-Agencies following government decision-Held, there is
E nothing wrong in agencies having acted 011 the policy decision of the State
G ovemment.
The Government of Rajasthan introduced various programmes and
allied schemes for poverty elimination, employment generation, etc. in the
early eighties. These schemes brought into existence bodies known as
F District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) which were registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The main object of these
agencies was to plan and administer the area development programme
--+--·
aimed at Integrated Rural Development and to implement these schemes
and other allied activities. The societies did not have funds of their own
G
and were completely funded by the State Government. Each District Rural
Development Agency was an independent entity located in each district
with the District Collector as ex-officio Chairman and a Project Director
as the Chief Executive Officer. Subject to the allocation of funds by the
State of Rajasthan to each DRDA for implementation of particular
>
scheme, persons including the petitioners were employed under the·
H schemes on various posts pursuant to the State Rural Development Agency
408
RAJENDRA v. STATE
409
Employees Service Regulation,1983. The appointments were made locally A
... ~
and seniority of the employees was also maintained on district basis. There
was no inter se seniority. The jobs were not interchangeable or transferable
from one DRDA to another. In the year 1992, the State Government looking
at the availability of funds took a decision to abolish certain posts in the
entire State of Rajasthan belonging to different DRDAs on the recommen· B
dation of an Expert Committee appointed to review the various schemes.
This led to termination of several LDCs .and Class IV Employees (Peons)
by the Agencies .
..;-
Several petitions were filed before the High Court by such Class-III
and Class-IV employees. The principal grounds of challenge were that the c
petitioners having been appointed regularly against different posts, their
services could not have been terminated; the petitioners though outwardly
appointed in several societies were in fact the employees of the State
Government in as much as their salaries were being paid from the funds
made available by the State Government and that there were several D
vacancies available with the State Government against which the
petitioners could have been accommodated and regularised; that the
DRDA was 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the provisions of Section 25-F were not com}'lied
with; and the rule of 'last come • first go' was not followed.
E
Single Judge allowed the writ petition solely on the ground that
though the petitioners were employees of the DRDA Societies which were
independent bodies, the societies terminated the employment of the
petitioners at the behest of the State Government and without any applica-
tion Qf mind of their own. The single Judge left it open to the DRDAs
F
concerned to take decision afresh after proper application of micd; in the
event of the services of the employees of the DRDAs being still terminated,
·-
the State Government was advised to consider the absorption of the
petitioners in various other departments if State Government by practice
was doing so. The State of Rajasthan as well as the Societies preferred writ
appeals challenging the judgment of the Single Judge which were allowed G
by Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
...._
Against the JudgmeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.