Learned counsel submits that petitioner was initially engaged on daily rated basis. His services were terminated by the respondent No.2 followed by a writ petition before this Court. Prior to setting aside earlier termination order by this Court, service of petitioner was regularized. Since, he was having blindness, application for voluntary retirement was moved. It was not accepted by the respondents and in the meanwhile, service of petitioner was retrenched vide order dated 29th June, 2002. The petitioner being blind, was interested only in retiral benefits, thus writ petition was initially filed for the aforesaid purpose. Since, termination was coming in the way to get retiral benefits, petitioner sought permission to amend the writ petition so as to challenge the order of retrenchment. This is moreso when, similarly placed employees had challenged the order of retrenchment by maintaining writ petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. It was allowed and those similarly placed employees were reinstated. In view of above, petitioner is also entitled for similar benefits.
