SBCWP NO.4377/10. SBCWP NO.988/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4377/2010. Shishpal Mordiya Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.988/2010. Ramesh Kumar Kuldeep Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- March 31, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kamal Kumar Mathur and Shri Vijay Poonia for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- These two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 15/1/2010 by which, services of petitioners whose appointment was made on contract basis under the Water Harvesting Pariyojana being run by Panchayat Samiti Khandela were discontinued w.e.f. 15/1/2010. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned-order is based on mere assertion that the project for which petitioners were engaged was completed or that there was no fund available in that project. Learned counsel in this connection cited the order dated 7/5/2007 and argued that a sum SBCWP NO.4377/10. SBCWP NO.988/10. 2 of Rs.30 lacs was made available for this project at Gram Panchayat Khatundara and four more Gram Panchayats where petitioners were engaged and that appointment of the petitioners was made way back on 11/10/2006 and 19/12/2006, respectively in the office of the respondents on availability of work and still project did not end therefore respondents could not have discontinued their appointment. Learned counsel also cited the term of agreement executed between the petitioners and the respondents and submitted that as per clause 6.1(c) of the said agreement, respondents were required to serve upon the petitioners 15 days prior notice in case they wanted to terminate their services. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that order impugned clearly states that since Jal Grahan Pariyojana (Water Harvesting Project) being run in the Panchayat Samiti Khandela in two phases has now been completed and that no funds are available on the administrative head of the project, therefore services of petitioners who were engaged as Social Worker and Animal Husbandry Member are no longer required and contract of their services was discontinued from 15/1/2010. Petitioners failed to show that anybody has been engaged in their place. So far as the question of not serving upon the petitioners 15 days prior notice is concerned, it is SBCWP NO.4377/10. SBCWP NO.988/10. 3 left open upon the petitioners to make representation to the respondents for considering their case for granting them remuneration of 15 days as envisaged in clause 6(i)(c) of the agreement. 4) Both the writ petitions are dismissed although with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil