CW 7749/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7749/06 Prabhu Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 30/01/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Virendra Dave, for petitioner Mr. Hemant Mathur, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner-workman assailing order Ann.7 dt.22nd July, 2006 whereby his services were terminated on the premise that government has taken decision to prefer special appeal before Division Bench of this court. Petitioner-workman was working on daily wages basis as Beldar and his services were terminated w.e.f. 17th December, 1988 which was assailed by him through a reference which was made by the appropriate government for adjudication. Learned Labour Court, Bharatpur after hearing parties allowed his claim and while setting aside the order of termination dt.17th December, 1988 directed the respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service. However, he will not be entitled for back wages for the intervening CW 7749/06 [2] period. It appears that against the award Ann.2 respondent preferred Writ Petition No.9429/05 which was dismissed on 29th November, 2005 and on its rejection respondents considered appropriate to reinstate the petitioner in service in terms of award vide order dt.4th April, 2006 and the petitioner reported for duty on 15th April, 2006. However, the authority later took decision to file special appeal before Division Bench of this court on the said premise terminated his services vide Ann.7 dt.22nd July, 2006. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that even special appeal preferred by the respondent has also been finally dismissed on 3rd September, 2008. It will be relevant to mention that when writ petition was initially came for admission. While admitting writ petition on 5th February, 2008, this court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, but since order was not complied with by the respondents, petitioner was constrained to file contempt petition in this court. CW 7749/06 [3] When contempt petition came for consideration, this court considers appropriate to decide the main writ petition finally at this stage and the matter has been heard. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition but no justification has been submitted in terminating services of the petitioner. It is really sorry state of affairs that nobody in the government takes its accountability and without taking responsibility on his shoulder taking arbitrary decision it is a blatant case where the respondents terminated services of the petitioner-workman only on the premise that they have decided to prefer special appeal against the order of learned Single Judge. It is really very strange that even after notices were issued with the further direction to reinstate him in service within four weeks as per interim order of this court dt.5th February, 2008, still he has not been reinstated. The very reason on which respondent proceeded to terminate services of the petitioner is wholly ill-founded and deserves to be set aside. CW 7749/06 [4] This Court further considers appropriate in the facts of instant case since a poor employee like petitioner has been dragged because of arbitrary action of the respondent, to impose cost upon the respondents which can be recovered from defaulting person. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order Ann.7 dt.22nd July, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith along with all consequential benefits flowing thereof and should also pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner which can be recovered by the State functionaries from defaulting person. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA7749CW06 30-1.doc