1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.853/1996 Soorajmal Mali vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 9.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi ] Ms. Kusum Rao ], for the respondents <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the petitioner is that he was given appointment on the post of Asst. Secretary in Gram Pancahyat in the year 1978. He was sent for training and he was allowed to continue on the post by resolution dated 25.3.1985 and he was granted pay scale on 20.1.1988 and that was duly sanctioned by the competent authorities. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 7th Sept., 1989, the petitioner was verbally told by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Oriyan, Mount Abu that now his services are not required and he should not come. It is also submitted that in the month of May, the petitioner's father became seriously sick and in first week of June, the petitioner's father expired and, therefore, petitioner remained on leave from 12.5.1989 to 19.6.1989 with the permission of the respondents. Six month's prior to his father's death, the petitioner's mother also expired. Be it as it may be, the 2 petitioner was not allowed to discharge the duties on the instruction of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as per the case of the petitioner then petitioner preferred SBCWP No.3969/1989 assailing the termination order alleged to have been passed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. In that writ petition on petitioner's second stay petition no.4515/1990 on 21st Nov., 1990, this Court directed the respondents to pay the salary month by month to the petitioner. It will be worthwhile to mention here that during the pendency of the above writ petition, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 12th Sept., 1990 and because of that, the petitioner filed the second stay petition no.4515/1990 wherein it has been stated by the petitioner that “....it is not understandable that under which law the petitioner was served with a charge sheet after the termination of his services and since the petitioners services have been verbally terminated on 7.9.89 for which the petition is still pending and after the termination of the services the question of charge does not at all arise until and unless petitioner be taken on duty and he may be suspended and suspension allowances be given then only charge sheet can be served if there are any charges...” The petitioner in the second stay petition prayed that operation of the charge-sheet dated 12.9.1989 (Annex.6) may kindly 3 be stayed and in alternative non-petitioners may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner on duty from 7.9.89 and petitioner be allowed to work on the post and he may kindly be paid his salary with all consequential benefits. On 2.8.1995, the petitioner got his this writ petition no.3969/89 dismissed as withdrawn by making a statement that the petitioner's grievance has been redressed by the respondent -authorities. Then petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 1996. In this fresh writ petition, the petitioner alleged that from the facts pleaded it is clear that petitioner has worked at Gram Panchayat since 22nd June, 1985 to 4th Nov., 1995 and his services have been regularized by the respondent – Gram Panchayat. However, no order of regularization of petitioner's service has been placed on record. The petitioner was served with the communication dated 4th Nov.,. 1995 conveying that after the dismissal of his writ petition no.3969/1989 by order dated 2.8.1995, he is not entitled to continue on the post and, therefore, he be relieved forthwith. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged the order dated 2.8.1995 in this petition. The contention of the petitioner is that, that after his removal from services from 1989 during the pendency of the writ petition no.3969/1989, the petitioner was taken 4 back in service and petitioner's services is sought to be terminated only on the ground that his writ petition no.3969/1989 has been dismissed as withdrawn. It is submitted that no formal order of termination of services after 1989 was ever passed and petitioner cannot be discharged from duties only because he withdrew his writ petition and that was because of the reasons that respondents too back the petitioner in service. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition no.3969/1989 as well as all the documents placed on record. It is admitted by the petitioner in his earlier writ petition no.3969/1989 that he was removed from service on 7th Sept., 1989 by oral order and that oral order was challenged by filing the writ petition no.3969/1989. The petitioner even after obtaining the interim order of payment of salary during the pendency of the writ petition in second stay petition for the reasons best known to him withdrew the writ petition and by that any challenge to the petitioner's termination of services by order passed in the year 1989 has came to an end. The payment of salary to the petitioner because of interim order of this Court in petitioner's second stay application does not create any 5 right in favour of the petitioner because that payment was made to him to comply with the order of this Court and admittedly, the contempt petition was filed and petitioner then he was paid the salary. The contention of the petitioner that he was taken back in service is only petitioner's own admission in his own favour which is not binding upon the respondent. In these circumstances, the communication dated 4th Nov., 1995 is a consequential order, which is a natural consequence after dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition no.3969/1989. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-