Dismissed

Hans Raj v. District Judgeship Alwar

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2009CW/7255/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the termination of services of temporary Class-IV employees. The court held that since appointments were explicitly made on an urgent temporary basis under Rule 29 with no guarantee of confirmation, regularization cannot be directed despite counsel submissions citing Rule 31.

What did the court decide?

The termination order was upheld; petitions for regularization and quashing of termination were dismissed.

Hans Raj Vs District Judgeship Alwar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7255/03
Hansraj vs. District Judgeship, Alwar

¶3

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7256/03
Rajendra Kr. Raigar vs. District Judeship,
Alwar

¶4

Date of order : 6/4/2009.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶6

Shri A.K. Jaiman for the petitioners.
Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel
for the respondents.

¶7

******

¶8

These two writ petitions are filed by

¶9

petitioner Hansraj and Rajendra Kumar Raigar
who were appointed with the respondents on
the post of Class-IV employee by order dated

¶10

11.1.2001 on urgent temporary basis for a
period of three months respectively on
11.1.01 and 5.5.01 for a period of three

¶11

months or till availability of regularly
selected persons. Their services along with
six others were terminated by order dated
28.10.2003.

¶12

Shri A.K. Jaiman, learned counsel for
the petitioners has argued that even though
the appointment of the petitioner was
described as on urgent temporary but it was

¶13

only a misnomer. Otherwise, all such
formalities which are required to be

¶14

¶15

completed at the time of regular appointment

¶16

were fulfilled. The petitioners competed
with another eligible persons and they were
interviewed. The appointment order was
accordingly issued in the regular scale of
pay. Learned counsel cited Rule 31 of the
Rajasthan Class-IV (Service and Other
Conditions), Rules 1999 (for short-the
Rules) and argued that those appointed on
temporary / officiating basis if not
confirmed within six months are liable to be
made permanent on completion of period of
two years of service. Leaned counsel cited
example of one Pooran Singh and submitted
that even though he was appointed
subsequently by order dated 12.11.01 on
urgent temporary basis but his appointment
was saved just because he was transferred to
another judgeship. Learned counsel submitted
that the writ petition be allowed and the
order of termination be set aside and the

¶17

respondents be directed to treat the
petitioner as regularised in service as per
Rule 31, supra deeming as if his appointment
was made on substantive basis from the date

¶18

one Pooran Singh was appointed and the

¶19

¶20

condition incorporated in the order of

¶21

appointment that the appointment would be on
urgent temporary basis be quashed and set
aside and the respondents be directed to
regularise the petitioner in service.

¶22

The respondents have contested the writ
petition and have submitted that not only
the petitioner but services of as many as 8
temporary employees were terminated. They
were appointed on temporary basis and the
appointment order itself stated that the
appointment was made till regularly selected
candidates becomes available. It is
contended that the appointment of the
petitioner was made under Rule 29 of the
Rules and therefore it cannot be said that
he has been appointed on regular basis. It
is contended that on the date on which the
services of the petitioner and other six
were terminated, Pooran Singh was not
working with the respondents at Alwar. There
is therefore no case of discrimination.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record,
I find that even the appointment order which
the petitioners have produced on record

¶24

¶25

clearly show that their appointment was made

¶26

on urgent temporary basis for a period of
three months and the appointment order/s
clearly state that it was made under Rule 29
of the Rules. The appointment orders also
stated that services of the petitioners
could be brought to an end at any time even
before that. In the instant case, the
appointment of not only the petitioners but
also six others who all were appointed on

¶27

urgent temporary basis were terminated. The
argument of discrimination with reference to
Pooran Singh whose services are shown to
have been transferred to some other district
cannot be upheld for directing the
respondents to regularise services of the
petitioner and to quash and set aside the
termination order. In the face of the clear
stipulation made in the appointment order
that the appointment of the petitioners was
not made on regular basis and was only on
urgent temporary basis, I do not find any
merit in this writ petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.

¶28

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/

Hans Raj v. District Judgeship Alwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj v. District Judgeship Alwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirth Mal Vs State

Raj.Sahayak Karamchari Sangh Vs State

Bhanwar Lal Solanki Vs State

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs State

Prem Prasad Saxena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

H C L Vs the Judge Labour Court