CWP 4702/01 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4702/2001 Ghan Shyam Versus State & (2) Ors Date of Order ::: 18/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Tanvir Ahmed for Mr. B.Bagri, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that after having worked for sufficient long time in the cadre of Class IV as Safaiwala, his services were terminated by verbal order w.e.f. 23/07/2001. Petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in place of Smt.Geeta Devi purely on part-time basis as is evident from order dt.20/09/93 and initially he was paid Rs.50/- per month and on his request, was increased to Rs.200/-. Case set up by petitioner is that while he proceeded on leave from 21/07/01 to 23/07/01 but thereafter was not permitted to join and thereby his services were verbally terminated. Counsel for petitioner submits that atleast he has worked for sufficient long time on part-time basis and cannot be replaced by another incumbent and such action of respondent in making arbitrary employment is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel also submits CWP 4702/01 //2// that petitioner has a right to continue even on same terms & conditions, on which he was initially engaged by respondents in the cadre of Class IV and denial of appointment to him is arbitrary and further affected his right of livelihood guaranteed in the Constitution of India. Respondents have filed reply specifically averring that petitioner was engaged purely on part-time basis only for one and half hours in a day and as per record, for the work which he performed, was accordingly paid consolidated amount for the period of his working. It was also averred that there is no permanent vacancy in the cadre of Class IV; as such could not be considered even for regular appointment and this request was denied way back in the year 1996 and was never appointed by any mode of recruitment in the cadre of Class IV as provided in Scheme of Service Rules; as such no right was conferred in his favour. This Court has considered contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Looking to the nature of appointment of petitioner, being purely on part time basis in place of Smt.Geeta Devi for his work only of one & half hours in a day on CWP 4702/01 //3// consolidated wages of Rs.50/- per month, which was being performed by him as part-time Sweeper, it does not confer any right in his favour and he has never gone through recruitment process as provided under Scheme of Service Rules, and as informed by respondents, there is no post in the cadre of Class IV available in the office of respondent No.3 where he was engaged on part time basis. As regards submission about replacement by some one, there is no material available on record which may substantiate his case as to who has been replaced vice him after alleged oral termination – in absence whereof, submission is without any substance. Judgment in Bhawan Singh Vs. State (CWP- 43/1995 decided on 08/10/96) on which Counsel has placed reliance, does not come in rescue of petitioner for the reason that it was a case where petitioner came out with specific plea that he was entitled for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without compliance of requirement U/s 25-F of the Act, his services could not have been terminated, whereas there is no such averment in this regard in instant petition. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition, with no order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/4702CWP01(ID).doc