SBCWP NO.875/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.875/2002. Anit Narain Balmik Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of order:- January 29, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bhanwar Bagri for the petitioner. Ms. Ashish Joshi for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to regularise the petitioner in their services and make him permanent on the post of Class-IV and provide him prescribed regular pay scale of the said post from the date he joined the services. According to the learned counsel petitoner, petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as Sweeper in the office of respondent No.3 in the month of October, 1996. Copy of this order dated 13/12/1996 is produced on record to substantiate this fact. It is contended SBCWP NO.875/02. 2 that petitioner was initially paid monthly wages of Rs.60/- and this was later raised to Rs.150/- w.e.f. November 1998 and thereafter Rs.300/- with effect from August 1999. Learned counsel submitted that a certificate was issued by the respondents on 16/4/2000 showing that petitioner was serving as Part Time Sweeper @Rs.150/- per month. It is contended that petitioner actually discharged the duties in regular office hours for sweeping and cleaning the premises and rooms of the office of respondent No.3 as well as Junior Engineer, Kotkasim, Alwar. Since petitioner has worked for last more than five years when he filed writ petition, it was submitted that he should be granted the relief prayed for. 2) This matter was earlier argued for some time on 27/1/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner when required to explain why he since June, 1991 was attending duties, an affidavit of the petitioner has been filed today stating therein that though petitioner was continuously working with the respondents till 1/6/1991 but thereafter when he went to attend his duties, he was asked not to come on duties which is why he approached this court by filing writ petition and even if this court by interim order dated 22/1/2003 directed the respondents not to remove him from service, the SBCWP NO.875/02. 3 respondents refused to take him on service and told him that if necessary, they would call but thereafter respondents never called the petitioner and therefore petitioner cannot be blamed if he did not attend the duties. Affidavit further states that petitioner did not abandon the service and since then he is not in service and still unemployed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this court in Mona alias Mohini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.311/2003 decided on 13/8/2004 and argued that this court in the aforesaid case held that respondents should produce the evidence to show that petitioner abandoned the service. Learned therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed in terms prayed for. 3) Ms.Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner worked with the respondents only till May 2001 and since June 2001 he voluntarily stopped coming on duty. He was engaged on part time basis and his duty hours were only from 8 to 10 A.M. He was thus required to clean office premise for two hours daily. He was not entitled to any regular salary nor regularisation in service. Initially, petitioner was engaged as part time Sweeper from October 1996 to December 1996 and SBCWP NO.875/02. 4 thereafter from February 1998 to May 2001. Thereafter, from June 2001. Thereafter, he voluntarily stopped coming. It is argued that petitioner has not disclosed all these facts even to this court when he filed present writ petition and concealed such facts which is why this Court was persuaded to pass the interim order on 22/1/2003 requiring respondents to not to remove the petitioner from service during pendency of the writ petition. It is argued that when petitioner in view of the affidavit now filed by him is not in service since June 2001, there can be hardly any question of regularisation or giving regular pay scale. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that in the averments of the writ petition, petitioner has not mentioned the fact that respondents have stopped taking work from him from June 2001 or even after filing the writ petition on 24/1/2002. Strangely, petitioner in the affidavit filed today has asserted on oath that when he went to the respondents with the copy of the stay order, they told him that they would take work from him only when required and they did not accept the copy of the stay order. It is further stated that respondents told the petitioner that if and when SBCWP NO.875/02. 5 necessary they would call him on duty and thereafter they never called him on duty and therefore petitioner cannot be blamed for that. It is stated that petitioner did not abandon the service and in fact since then he is unemployed and facing financial crises. When the facts stated in the affidavit are examined with those stated in rejoinder to the writ petition, it is evident that in para 5 of the rejoinder, petitioner denied an assertion made by the respondents that he has stopped coming on duty since July 2001 and similar assertion is made in para 9 of the rejoinder. If what is stated in the rejoinder also supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, is closely examined, it is obvious that petitioner has deposed a false affidavit either with the rejoinder or affidavit which he filed today. Even his affidavit which he filed with the writ petition in January 2002 also stands falsified in view of admission now made by him that he actually was not working with the respondents after 1/1/2001. If that was so, it was expected of the petitioner to have made full and blank disclosures about such fact in the memo of writ petition. It was owing to such concealment of material fact that this Court was persuaded to pass the interim order dated 22/3/2001. Not only that, from the conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that he was hardly willing to work. If he SBCWP NO.875/02. 6 was genuinely interested in working, then nothing prevented him from approaching this Court by filing contempt petition bringing all these facts to the knowledge of the court that respondents inspite of furnishing copies of the stay order, have refused to comply with the same. This affidavit was filed only when petition was taken up for argument and respondents pointed out that petitioner has not been working since January 2001 which in fact was asserted by them in their reply to the writ petition filed way back on 11/12/2003. In normal course, I would have thought of proceedings against the petitioner for the act of purgery in appropriate proceedings. But keeping in view the fact that this petitioner comes from Scheduled Castes and lower startar of the society, that action is not considered appropriate. However, in the facts of the present case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil