AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-
“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.2.2016 (Annex.6) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside.
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pass a formal order for confirmation of services of the petitioner.
(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
The petitioner was given appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd (SPINFED) vide order dated 20.1.2014 after undergoing selection process in pursuance of the advertisement so issued. Condition no.
(9) of the appointment order dated 20.1.2014 reads as follows :
“9- Other terms and conditions of service shall be as per Employees Service Rules, 1994, contract of service to be executed between the Federation and Sh.Raghavendra Ojha and the general rules/order issued by the Federation from time to time.”
The petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 19.2.2016 (Annex.6) on account of the fact that the services on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) were no longer required as the concerned Unit of SPINFED at Hanumangarh was closed from 04.11.2015. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out “Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Employees Service Rules, 1994” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1994’), particularly, Rule 3.28 which deals with probation and Rule 3.29 i.e. regarding termination of service. Both the relevant Rules i.e. Rule 3.28 and Rule 3.29 are reproduced as follows :
3.28 Probation :
Every person appointed to a post under the Federation, after the commencement of these rules, whether by promotion or by direct recruitment shall be on probation, on such post, for a period of one year.
The appointing authority may, if it thinks fit, in the case of any employee, extend the period of probation. The total probation period shall not be more than two years.
However, when a person, appointed to a post, under the Federation on probation is, during his period of probation, found unsuitable for holding that post or has not completed his period of probation satisfactorily, then the appointing authority may :
(a) in the case of person appointed by promotion revert him to the post held by him / h er immediately before such appointment.
(b) in the case of person appointed by direct recruitment terminate his / her services under the Federation without notice.
Every person appointed to a permanent post under the Federation by promotion or by direct recruitment shall on satisfactory completion of his period of probation be eligible for substantive appointment in that post.
Service of any employee appointed on probation shall be terminate forthwith without any notice before the expiry of the period of probation in the circumstances or events mentioned in rule 3.29 (4) a +
(b) of these rules.
3.29 Termination of Service :
The services of a temporary employee shall terminate :
(a) if his appointment is made for a specified period, on the expiry of such period.
(b) if his appointment has been made against a temporary post, on the abolition of the post or the expiry of the period for which the post is created.
(2) the services of an employee who has been in continuous service for a period of one year or more could be terminable by giving him 30 days notice in writing or 30 days salary in lieu of such notice. In case the notice falls short of the specified period, the employee would be paid salary for the period by which such notice falls short of that period.
(3) The services of an employee who has been in continuous employment for more than six months but less than a year could be terminated by giving at least 15 days notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof.
(4) The services of an employee shall be terminated without any notice forthwith in the following circumstances :-
(a) absence from duty for ten days or more without notice in writing or without sufficient federation :
(b) willfully causing loss or damage to the business / property of the Federation;
(c) when the period of continuous service in the Federation does not exceed six months ;
(d) going on or abetting a strike in contravention of any law for the time being in force;
(e) when the acts or behaves in contravention of rules 3.1, 3.5, 3.9;
(f) for any other kind of misconduct or misbehavior.
(5) Service of an employee may be terminated if an account of mus-appropriation, the case is decided under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, against him. Any act under Section 130 (P) of the said Act will also incur the disqualification for remaining in service.
(6) In case where an employee has done any act which has adversely affected the credit or good-will of the Federation, the services of such employee shall be terminated.
(7) The services of an employee shall be terminated if it is found that he is carrying out the same business is carried out in his own name or in the name of his family members or an employee has violated rule 42 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969.
(8) An employee on probation will not require to be given any notice for termination of his service if his work at any stage during his probation is found to be unsatisfactory.
(9) The services of an employee who has been confirmed in any post could be terminated by giving him at least three months, in writing or three months salary in lieu thereof by the appointing authority i.e. Board of Directors of the Managing Director, as the case may be.
Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondents were under an obligation not to extend the probation period beyond a period of two
years. Counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the termination of service of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule 3.29 of the Rules of 1994.
Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny applicability of Rules of 1994. Counsel for the respondent states that termination of service was on account of closure of Unit concerned, whereas, he is not in a position to deny that the petitioner was not recruited after a regular process of selection on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). Counsel for the respondent further submitted that since the Unit at Hanumangarh was closed w.e.f. 04.11.2015, therefore, the respondents were having no option but to discontinue services of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing Rules of 1994, more particularly, Rule 3.28 and Rule 3.29 of the Rules of 1994, this Court if of the opinion that the petitioner herein, a regularly selected candidate on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) could not have been kept on probation for more than two years as specified in Rule 3.28 Sub-Rule (2), whereby the respondents were under an obligation to not to extend the period of total probation period for more than two years. Admittedly, appointment was accorded on 20.1.2014 and the termination order was passed on 19.2.2016. This Court finds that termination of services of the petitioner was illegal as Rule 3.29 of the Rules of 1994 does not provide any such ground of closure of the unit for terminating services of a regularly selected employee, who has come on the post after facing recruitment process.
Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to furnish any reason as to why the order terminating the petitioner was not passed within a period of two years. Counsel for the respondent has also failed to point out as to how the impugned order dated 19.2.2016 was sustainable in light of Rule 3.28 and Rule 3.29 of the Rules of 1994. The respondents have absorbed other employees of closed Units and, therefore, the petitioner was also required to be absorbed as he was a regularly recruited Junior Engineer (Electrical).
In light of aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.2.2016 (Annex.6) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give employment to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law treating him at par with other employees of the closed
Unit. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any wages from 19.2.2016 till today on actual basis, however, he shall be entitled for all notional benefits and further continuance of service strictly in accordance with law.