S.B.C.W.P. NO. 1185/1996-Hema Ram and ors.vs.State & Anr. Order dt:6/11/08 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Hema Ram and ors. vs. State & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1185/1996 DATE OF ORDER : 6th November, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI None present for the petitioner. Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, Deputy Government Counsel. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. In this writ petition, a batch of 14 petitioners, were appointed as Hand pump Mistries vide Annex.1 dated 3/8/1995 by Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti were terminated from their services by order Annex.P/5 dated 14/3/1996 in pursuance of Annex.P/4 dated 28/2/1996, whereby, the State Government reiterated that State Government had imposed ban on appointment of Hand pump Mistry w.e.f.29/4/1994 and also directed the respective Panchayat Samities S.B.C.W.P. NO. 1185/1996-Hema Ram and ors.vs.State & Anr. Order dt:6/11/08 2/4 to terminate the services of those who were appointed after such date of 29/4/1994, if they have not completed 240 days in a year and if they have so completed 240 days their services may be terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since appointments of petitioners were made on 3/8/1995 during the aforesaid period of ban, their appointments were illegal and, therefore, since petitioners had not completed 240 days in a year, their services were terminated vide Annex.P/5 dated 14/3/1996 without complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submits that the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioners along with additional affidavit dated 8/8/2002 namely Annex.P/7 to Annex.P/11 are of no avail to the petitioner as the petitioners were not appointed as Hand Pump Mistries on contractual basis and, therefore, there was no occasion to regularise their services. He further relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi vs. State – 2006 (4) SCC 1 and submits that no right vests in the petitioners for regularisation in the said service. S.B.C.W.P. NO. 1185/1996-Hema Ram and ors.vs.State & Anr. Order dt:6/11/08 3/4 4. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 15/4/1996 had found that no case of stay was made out since services of petitioners have already been terminated on 28/2/1996 and accordingly the stay petition was rejected, therefore, admittedly petitioners have not continued in the said job at the time of filing of the petition and thereafter. Admittedly, they have not completed 240 days after their initial appointment on 3/8/1995 as their services were terminated on 14/3/1996 before completion of 240 days. The petitioners have not shown that their appointment was against substantive vacancies or after due selection process, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court no directions can be given to the respondents for their regularisation as claimed in the writ petition. 5. The documents sought to be filed by the petitioners through additional affidavit showing the requirement of additional Hand Pump Mistries cannot enure to the benefit of petitioners as the said requirement vide letter dated 2/4/2005 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Revdar is after lapse of about nine years from the date of termination of services of petitioners. The same S.B.C.W.P. NO. 1185/1996-Hema Ram and ors.vs.State & Anr. Order dt:6/11/08 4/4 cannot confer any right or benefit upon the petitioners. 6. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (surpa) no relief can be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition is, therefore, found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to petitioners. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no. 10 baweja/-