1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5091/2001 Ratan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2664/2002 Ram Dayal Bunkar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6105/2002 Bihari Lal Panchal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : : 18.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Vijay Singh for Mr.Paras Kuhad ] Mr.Anurag Sharma ] Mr.P.S.Sharma for the petitioners. Mr.A.K.Sharma ] Mr.Vishnu Kant Sharma ] Mr.Alok Garg ] Mr.Virendra Lodha ] Mr.Vinod Goyal for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These three writ petitions have been filed by the writ-petitioners aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2-Rajasthan State Industrial & Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short “RIICO”) to declare them surplus and asking 2 them to accept voluntary retirement. All the petitioners were originally employed with Rajasthan Electronics Ltd, s subsidiary company of the RIICO, which was closed down in the year 1991. Substantial number of employees of the above referred to closed down subsidiary company were absorbed in the Instrumentation Ltd., Kota pursuant to tripartite agreement between these two companies. Present five petitioners were not absorbed and were asked to proceed on voluntary retirement which is why they approached this Court. In Writ Petition No.5091/2001, this Court while issuing notices to the respondents on 18.12.2001 directed that if the petitioners are still in service they shall not be retrenched till further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced for perusal of this Court order dated 12.6.2007, which is taken on record, showing that petitioners No.1 & 2, who were hither to being continued in the service of respondents pursuant to aforesaid interim order, have since been absorbed on the post of Sahayak in the Center for Development of Stones, a unit of RIICO with effect from the date of issue of the said order. Copy of the order dated 8.9.2006 has also been produced, which is taken on record, shows that petitioner No.3 Mohan Lal Rana, who is now 3 being continued with respondent No.2 on deputation from Rajasthan Electronics Ltd. (for short “REL”) was absorbed in the services of Bureau of Investment Promotion, Rajasthan, Jaipur w.e.f. 8.9.2006. Controversy now remains only about remaining two writ-petitioners in Writ Petition No.2664/2002 filed by Ram Dayal Bunkar and in Writ Petition No.6105/2002 filed by Bihari Lal Panchal, in both of which, this Court was persuaded to pass a status-quo order respectively on 30.10.2002 and 10.9.2002. Owing to the aforesaid status-quo order these two writ-petitioners have also continued in the services of the respondents. Shri Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5091/2001 filed by Ratan Lal & Ors., has submitted that only controversy that may survive in respect to the petitioners is with regard to pay fixation by treating them to have continued in service throughout. Learned counsel for the petitioners in remaining two writ petitions however submitted that when 57 other employees were absorbed in the Instrumentation Ltd., Kota and three of the petitioners in the first of the above writ petitions were absorbed as stated above, there is no reason why the respondents should not consider to absorb the remaining 4 petitioners in their employment. Shri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2664/2002 filed by Ram Dayal Bunkar, has invited attention of the Court towards the order dated 18.12.2002 issued by respondent-RIICO, which he has produced on record along with the rejoinder. This order dated 18.12.2002 indicates that the respondent-RIICO pursuant to recommendations of the DPC promoted as many as 42 Sahayasks cum Chowkidar to the post of Jamadar. His contention is that even after filing of the writ petition before this Court, 42 posts of Sahayaks became available and remaining two petitioners, who are working on the post of Sahayak, should be considered for being continued in the services of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the writ petition, but did not controvert the basic fact that all other employees including 57 employees, who were originally absorbed in Instrumentation Ltd., Kota and three petitioners in the first writ petition have already been absorbed. No affidavit in rebuttal to the facts stated in rejoinder along with a document, has been filed by the respondents. It is thus evident that number of posts are still 5 available with the respondents. No criteria, which was adopted for absorption of those 60 employees of REL and for non-absorption of remaining two petitioners, has been produced before the Court. In any case, these two petitioners have during the pendency of writ petitions continued in services of the respondent-RIICO for last more than six years. In totality of the circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that cases of the remaining two petitioners are also considered for absorption giving them a similar treatment as was given to those who were absorbed against the available vacancies with the respondent-RIICO. In the result, the Writ Petition No.5091/2001 filed by Ratan Lal & Ors. is disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents with regard to extending them benefit of revised pay scale from the year 1998 onwards, which shall be considered and decided by the respondent-RIICO within three months from the date such representation is submitted by the petitioner. Remaining two Writ Petition No.2664/2002 filed by Ram Dayal Bunkar and Writ Petition No.6105/2002 filed by Bihari Lal Panchal are allowed with direction to the respondents to consider their 6 case for absorption on the vacant post of Sahayak available with them and pass necessary order within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before them on the same terms as were applied in the case those 60 others who were absorbed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.11 to 13.