CW 6534/91 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6534/91 Babu Lal Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for petitioner Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that his services were orally terminated by the respondents w.e.f. 29th November, 1991 and his further prayer is that once he was allowed to continue in service on daily wages basis, petitioner is entitled to seek regularization in terms of order of the apex court whereby certain scheme framed by the State Government was approved. Earlier writ petition preferred by him was dismissed by the Single Bench of this court on 6th September, 2002 – against which he preferred special appeal which was allowed on 27th September, 2008 and the matter was remitted back to be heard by Single Bench of this court afresh. As alleged in the petition, he was initially appointed as part-time Cook on fixed monthly CW 6534/91 [2] wages of Rs.250/- per month vide order dt.4th February, 1982. However, his services were extended from time to time, but he has shown his inability and tendered resignation on 11th November, 1987 and according to the petitioner, again he was appointed as part-time Cook on 6th June, 1991. However, his services were terminated w.e.f. 20th November, 1991 – against which he preferred writ petition. However, initially interim order was passed which was vacated by this court on 14th August, 1992. However, he preferred second stay application with the grievance that respondents should be restrained from terminating his services, that too was dismissed on 21st August, 2001. Counsel for petitioner submits that however the stay order was vacated by this court on 14th August, 1992, but document to this effect has been placed on record to show that petitioner continuously worked upto year 2000 and once he was allowed to continue by the respondents at their own, his claim was also covered to seek regularization in terms of scheme which was approved by the apex court vide its judgment dt.29th March, 1996. CW 6534/91 [3] Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have controverted the factual submission made by the petitioner. However, it has been submitted that as he himself tendered resignation and this fact has not been disclosed by him while filing instant petition and apart from it once he was allowed to continue on daily wages basis that will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner to seek regularization. Counsel further submits that this scheme for regularization was with regard to such employees who were in service of the respondents on the date when the scheme came into force. So far as present petitioner is concerned, his services were terminated in November, 1991 itself and there is no documentary evidence placed on record that he was allowed to continue after vacation of the stay order and in such circumstances, he could not be considered for regularization. I have considered the submissions of counsel for parties and perused the material on record. Petitioner initially worked as part time Cook from 1987 and left the service for his own personal reasons and thereafter, he was again CW 6534/91 [4] appointed as part time Cook on 6th June, 1991, hardly worked for 5 months and services were terminated by the respondents orally w.e.f. 20th November, 1991 being part time employee and interim order of this court was also vacated on 14th August, 1992. Petitioner has tried to convince this court that he was allowed to continue after vacation of stay order, but from the material which came on record, no inference can be drawn about his continuous working as Chowkidar. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not be said to be covered under the scheme which was approved by the apex court in the judgment dt.29th March, 1996. However, the petitioner being part time employee, no right was conferred to seek regularization of service. This court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6534CW91 11-2.doc