SBCWP NO.4997/97. SBCWP NO.2730/96. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4997/1997. Rajendra Atal Versus Director Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2730/1996. Director Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. Versus Rajendra Atal Date of Order:- February 3, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Anisha Jain for petitioner in SBCWP No. 4997/1997 and respondent in 2730/1996. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Deputy Government Counsel for State. ***** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions have been filed against the common award dated 9/1/1995 by which, Labour Court while answering the reference on the question of validity of termination of services of workman Rajendra Atal, directed the State of Rajasthan to pay SBCWP NO.4997/97. SBCWP NO.2730/96. 2 to him salary for the entire duration of second phase. 2) Ms.Anisha Jain, learned counsel appearing for workman Rajendra Atal has argued that number of persons who are acting FPA engaged much after the workman were ultimately transferred to the Medical & Health Department whereas, services of the workman were terminated. It is contended that action of the respondents is thus discriminatory. Workman filed application before the labour court for summoning the record from the respondents but they merely produced documents relating to the extension of UNFPA Scheme and other documents were withheld. Adverse inference should have been drawn against them. Learned Labour Court erred in merely directing that workman be paid salary of the second phase and not directing his reinstatement in the services of the State particularly when other persons of that scheme were taken in the Medical & Health Department. SBCWP NO.4997/97. SBCWP NO.2730/96. 3 3) Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition filed by the workman and submitted that workman was engaged in temporary scheme of UNPFA which was funded by the United Nations and services were engaged time and again. Once, scheme came to an end on 31/3/1986, thus his services were not required. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that there was no justification for the learned Labour Court in awarding salary to the workmen for the second phase of the scheme which came to an end in 1986. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the Labour Court was of the view that appointment letter of one Smt.Shanta Tamoliaya i.e. Exh.8 was taken on record so to show that she was continued in the services of the Medical and Health Department who was initially appointed with the workman under the scheme of UNPFA. However, when scheme was there, workman should also be continued however, instead of directing SBCWP NO.4997/97. SBCWP NO.2730/96. 4 reinstatement of the workman, learned Labour Court merely directed that the workman be paid salary for the entire second phase. In my view, approach of the learned Labour Court was perfectly justified. When the scheme was in operation, even after first phase was over, the workmen working under that scheme should have been engaged in the second phase also. Services of Smt.Shanta Tamoliya were also continued and were taken in Medical and Health Department but workman-Rajendra Atal was not re-engaged. It may not be justified now at this distinct of time to require the State to reengage the workman especially when scheme came to an end but at the same time, direction issued by the Labour Court for granting salary for the second phase of scheme appears to be fully justified. I, therefore, do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions, which, both are dismissed with no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil