Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors vs Prahlad Rai Meena And Ors

Vide this order above mentioned appeals would be disposed of.

Appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the

respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondents were disposed of by the learned Single Judge while

basing reliance the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5302/2004 :

Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr. Vs. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Association & Ors. decided on 28.03.2006. In a similar writ petition decided by the

learned Single Judge, the matter came up in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1197/2008 before the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court and the

appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.

The order dated 26.02.2018 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1197/2008 reads as under:-

Noting that the controversy in the writ petition filed bythe respondent was covered by a decision dated 28/03/2006 bythe Supreme Court in CA

5302/2004 :Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr. Vs. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Association & Ors., the writ petition filed by the respondent has been

disposed of noting the observations and directions by the Supreme Court which the learned Single Judge found to be applicable. They read as under:-

With regard to the appointment of 46 daily wage employees after the dissolution of the society, we hold that, in the facts and circumstances of this

case there is no right on the part of any employee to be reemployed. Also daily wages employees cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be put on par

with regular employees under any law prevalent as of date. The finding of the Division Bench that they can be treated on par with regular employees

and be given various reliefs is wrong and erroneous under law. Therefore, we are not granting any relief to the daily wage employees as their claim is

not justified under law.

However, the Government of Rajasthan may sympathetically consider absorption of these employees in the vacancy available if any in future by

giving them preference to other new applicants in any of their local bodies etc. subject to the following conditions:-

The employees will be entitled to salary/wages from the date of their re-employment and shall not claim for any past period;

The employees will not be entitled to pay protection, benefit of GO dated 25.01.1992, 5th Pay Commission and the service rendered by the

employees will not be considered for pension and/or other retiral benefits;

The appointment of Degree holder/Diploma holder Engineers shall be on the post of Junior Engineer on the minimum scale of pay;

The appointment of employees of Administrative Department would be on the post of Junior Clerk on the minimum scale of pay;

The appointment would be subject to suitability and physical fitness;

The alternative employment would be granted subject to availability of vacancy preferably within a period of 3 months.

If they are absorbed in future the same will be treated as a fresh employment and employees /appointees will be governed by the rules and regulations

of the absorbing Department if they are found suitable.

The impugned order gives no reasons as to why said observations and directions by the Supreme Court were applicable to the case of the

respondent.

A little history of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court needs to be penned.

The Supreme Court was dealing with a batch of appeals arising out of the decisions passed by this Court wherein employees of Avas Vikas

Sansthan were held entitled to be re-employed with wage protection. The Supreme Court noted that Avas Vikas Sansthan was registered as a Society

to obtain information regarding low cost technology for construction of houses and undertake construction work in the State of Rajasthan, but

extended its operations in the State of Maharashtra as well. The Rajasthan Housing Board used to sanction money whenever it would require the

Sansthan to construct low cost houses. The Sansthan was otherwise to raise its own resources and the State of Rajasthan and the Housing Board had

no control over the Sansthan. In the year 1997, the Sansthan incurred heavy losses. It was decided to close the Sansthan. The State Government

intervened and took a decision that the employees of the Sansthan would be adjusted on vacant posts in Municipal Boards, Municipal Councils, Jaipur

Development Authority and other Local bodies whenever the post fell vacant. It would be treated a case of re-employment. On 26/03/1999, the

Sansthan was dissolved. Employees Union filed writ petition pleading that the Sansthan was an agent of the court and the services could not be

terminated. A learned Single Judge of this Court granted relief to the employees of the Sansthan which, with some modifications, were upheld by the

Division Bench. Matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took the view that even civil posts could be abolished. The Supreme Court

took the view that the employees of the Sansthan would not be entitled to any pay protection. Dealing with the rights of daily wagers the Supreme

Court issued the directions as were noted by the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court noted that the abolition of a post as a measure of economy

was recognised by law. With respect to the fairness in action of the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that though the State was not

constitutionally or legally obliged to offer alternative employment to the employees of the Sansthan upon abolition of the posts, but the State of

Rajasthan did so and thus held that the employees were entitled to alternative employment on the terms offered by the State of Rajasthan and those

who were not willing to accept the same must suffer the consequences.

As regards the respondent he was admittedly on daily wage at a project in Latur and as pleaded by him in the writ petition on 16/03/1998 he was

issued a communication offering him alternative employment on the terms contained therein. The document has been annexed as Ann.6. The

respondent did not accept the same.

We note that a similarly situated employee who had filed SBCWP No.2671/1998 was employed at the Latur project suffered dismissal of the same

on 09/07/1998 because the court noted that vide letter dated 16/03/1998 the said employee at the Latur project was offered alternative employment on

the terms contained therein but he refused.

The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated18/07/2006 is set-aside. Writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

In view of the above decision dated 26.02.2018, the present appeals deserve to be allowed as the controversy involved in the present appeals is the

same.

Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed. Impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the

respondent No.1 stands dismissed.