^'"^^-S^K' •ly^ !>>• (A/^C^ S'.S-^S >-K. ';i3. '•^.K^* BEF©B£3'HE HSBHXa BBfiBBSH AEIMimSTBaffOTE TRIBgBa&» ' •:-3'-& B;'a ;fc;»W-,K. . • "~"-^' ;: "•;; Gase Sa.©,.Al l» ••siff ..Eekfaa Sisho©l :w: Niear Xagaff SaciaSt -, .BojLEdaaaae,- '®$s'tfel.:'';Rai.gash^ 4. KeivSbsasS.aaa.-SS.ias.S.f:- :— ;,.B/e'IPSEa^;Baicitala»,' : ^.. ^ &i9eQ.^S3»s ^ZQ^feaSSf.^ _. • •.. V.i.clya.-'BpaagaE^''';:'- Seav Via^ec -SasSCt Bllasp^r. 6 8, 1@, l^ .192 a a»aa ^,^^m gg^gg 1:^:^^-^^^. •:m^ lt;::,^'-:' %3i': 12y M.r* Class zn EB^iIoyees &ssoed.atioB» Sfar: Sa.ga.t Slagh Presl.deat., Branch Bila3pw;» Kartaachari Bbawan, Ba'varipara* BIIASSB&. Versas raTI'PXONEKS APHaICAJSH'S !• Sfeate of Madbya Pradesht Tbr: Secretary, Deptfe. of Parachayat & Soeia.l Welfare, Sevt, of M.Ss^ BHOP . 2, Jt. Director, Deptt. of Paachayat & Social Welfare^ Bilaspur Divlsioa* BILASPHR. EESPONDESTS NON-APPLICAHTS V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.552/2005 NON-APPLICANTS Ku. Rekha Pandey and others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Smt. V. Shradha Rao, counsel for the petitioners No.1, 5&6 to 11. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. (Passed on this 08 day of Mareh, 2010) the consent of iearned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard final! (2) This petition has been fi!eci by the petitioners aggrieved by the order of {erminafion dated 07-02-1992 (Annexure-A) passed by the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Bilaspur, by which, services of the petitioner have been terminated. (3) Facts necessary for adjudication as projected by the petitioners are that pursuant to advertisement dated 26-05-1988 published by the Directorate of Woman and Chitd Welfare, Madhya Pradesh, inviting app!ications for post of Gram Sewika, the petitioners submitted their candidature. The petitioners were subjected to the process of selection and recruitment and after due selection, all of them were selected. An order was passed on 07-10-1988(Annexure-F), by which, petitioners, who were selected for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika were appointed on Class-111 Executive Post of Multipurpose Rehabilitation AssistanV Multipurpose Rehabilitation Technician (For short "MRA/MRT") in the pay scale of Rs.870-1420/- on probation for a period of two years. The petitioners joined on the post and continued to work for almost five l]i:i""S!'!t3^ !;:!? • -. "!^:i;:^:~ -2- 7 years unti! their services were terminated by the impugned order dated 07-02-1992 (Annexure-A). (4) The aforesaid order of termination has been assailed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that the petitioners were subjected to process of selection for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika and further the petitioners were entitied So be continued on the post as they were selected for Gram Sewika. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that their appointment, as contended by the respondents, was not under any project or scheme and the same is also not reflected from the order of appointment. It is urged that a perusa! of the order of appointment would show that the appointment of the petitioner was regular in nature and not for any specific period in any scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in any case, action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners is absolutely unfair, arbitrary as also contrary to the instructions/directives issued by the Government of India dated 10-01-1991 as contained in (Annexure R-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid policy decision dated 10-01-1991, revising the old scheme, a resolution was also passed on 13-02-1991 communicated vide memo dated 04-04-1991 (Annexure J) appended to the rejoinder, for the MRA/MRT that they would be adjusted on vacant post in the Department of Woman and Child Welfare and it 'would be worked out by the Joint Director (Panchayat) in co-ordination with Commissioner. (5) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that though the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika, petitioners accepted the offer of appointment for the post of MRA/MRT. !t is also submitte'1, with reference to averments made in the return and rehabilitation scheme promulgated by the Government of India on 18-10-1985 (Annexure R-1), that the appointment of MRA/MRT was in fact appointment under the District Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government of India. He submits that this scheme was fully funded and financed by the Government of India. Learned counsel for the respondente seeks to justify the action of termination of service of the petitioners by submitting that in view of the revision of scheme as reflected from memo dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R-3), the post lil-'lffiil11- -I: I, of MRA/MRT were abolished under the revised scheme. In this view of the matter, termination of the petitioners became imminent. As the posts were abolished, no work was teft for the petitioners and as such, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the termination of the petitioners. (6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (7) !t is not in dispute that all the petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika pursuant to the advertisement dated 26-05-1988 (Annexure-D) by which applications were invited from eligible candidates for ippoinSment to the posts of Gram Sewika. It is aiso not in dispute that the petitioners were subjected to the process of selection and finally emerged as successful candidate and were selected for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika. True, it is that the petitioners were appointed to the post of MRA/MRT, there is nothing on record to show that before offering said appointment, petitioners were informed about the nature of their appointment that it is under project of the Govemment of india and may come to an end. In the abssnce of any such disclosure, it appears that the petitioners were under impression that they were regular appointees, which was also reflected from the order of appointment, so they proceeded to accept those appointments. (8) The stand of the respondents taken in their return is that later on GovernmenS of India revised the scheme as reflected from the Govt. letter dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R-3). A perusal ofthe said scheme ofthe Govt. of India shows that under the revised scheme, some of the posts which were sanctioned for the project did not find place and it was so indicated in the comparative table shown in Annexure-B appended to the memo dated 10-01- 1991 .The aforesaid policy letter stated that the posts which did not find place in the new scheme need not be filied up if they are lying vacant at present. It was further stipu!ated that posts which have already been filled up and do not find placs in the revised scheme, have to be phased out gradually either on becoming vacant or by adjusting the staff in some other place within the same Department or any other sister Department of the State Government. If the case of the respondents is to be accepted then on account of revision of scheme, the posts on which the petitioners were working were to be abolished gradually and the case of the petitioners were liable to be dealt with in the manner prescribed :i!!itt-;^ -^ in the aforesaid policy letter dated 10-01-1991. From the perusal of the Annexure-B appended to policy letter dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R-3), it is found that the post of MRA/MRT were sanctioned and existing in the old scheme but were abolished in the revised scheme. In this view of the matter, the course of action contemplated in document dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R- 3) was required to be followed bythe respondents. (9) The petitioners have brought on record a resolution dated 13-02-1991 cireulated vide memo dated 04-04-1991 (Annexure J), in which, itwas resolved in the meeting of State Level Advisory and Coordination Committee that 13 female workers working on the post of MRA would be considered for adjustment against yacant post in the Department of Woman and Child Welfare of the Government. It was resolved that for this purpose, Joint Director (Panchayat) was required to coordinate with the Divisiona! Commissioner to out the adjustment of the workers. (10) From the return filed by the respondents, it is not borne out that any steps as required under Govt. of India letter dated 10-01-1991 (Annexure R-3) were brought to its logicat conclusion after having been initiated vide resolution as aforesaid. It appears that though resolution was passed to adjust and appoint MRA/MRT consistent with the Govt. of India guidelines upon revision of scheme, petitioners were abruptly terminated. 1 am of the opinion that termination of services of the petitioners was not proper, unfair and was illegal. Firstly, the petitioners were selected for appointment to the post of Gram Sewika but respondents did not disclose to the petitioners the nature of appointment either permanent or temporary, though the order of appointment cleariy reflected that it was regular appointment. Secondly, even if the occasion arose on account of revision of scheme, there was absolutely no basis for terminating the services of the petitioner in as much as the scheme nowhere contemplated immediate termination of services of the petitioners. The scheme c!ear!y stated that the posts which are shown to have been abolished in the revised scheme, wou!d be phased out gradually. It was further stated in the sc'neme that elther posts fall vacant pr where the incumbent is appointed on any ofher equivalent post in the same department or in the sister department of the State Govt, abolition of posts sha!l take place. /' i, ^] w^ 1 •'1° ' ,y <r. \^ (11) During the pendency of this petition, from time to time directions were issued by the Tribunal to place on record relevant details as is reflected from various order sheets. The petitioners have placed on record that now the post of MRA/MRT has been continued as reflected from recruitment rules known as Chhattisgarh Panchayat and Social Welfare Class-111 (Karyapalik) Service and Recruitment Rules, 2003 filed as Annexure-A along with application for taking document on record dated 19-07-2008. In reply to the aforesaid application, respondents have fi!ed an affidavit dated 06-03-2010, in which, it has been stated thaS under the aforesaid Rules of 2008 at S.No.48 to 50 of Schedule-1,1 O post of Rehabilitation Assistant, two post of Multipurpose Rehabilitation Assistant and two post of Multipurpose Rehabilitation Assistant Technteal, District Rehabilitation Centre at Bilaspur, have been created. (12) Be that as it may, as l have held that the termination of the petitioners were illega!, unfair, the consequences shal! follow. (13) The petition is ailowed. The impugned order of termination dated 07-02- 1992 (Annexure-A) passed by the Joint Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Bi'aspur is hereby set aside. In so far as it relates to present status of the petitioners, thsy were allowed to continue in sen/ice by virtue of interim order dated 25-03-1992 passed by the Tribuna!. __-- •WiaB1' Sd-' c.wivastava ^anstw""'