Deen Dayal Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

..... - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - according to the respondents it is just like a shop selling text books during the academic session......shop there is only one other employee working called the manager or jncharge and one person engaged as book lifter who is appointed in the month of june-july and for other period the so-called incharge or manager works himself. according to the respondents it is just like a shop selling text books during the academic session. it is stated that the petitioner had mixed up with the said manager/incharge who is said to have offered him the post of peon in the month of april, 1989 which the manager/incharge cannot do as he was not authorised to do so. it is denied that there is any permanent post with the respondents and it is further submitted that it is only during the period of june and july that some extra hands are employed to cope with the work of selling of text books and the petitioner is similarly employed for one or two months in a year. it has been categorically stated that there is no vacant post available on which the petitioner could be adjusted.4. the averments made in the written statement have been controverted by way of rejoinder. it is stated that in addition to the post of incharge/manager there is another person om prakash who is working as night watchman and om.....

Judgment:

ORDER

J.C. Verma, J.

1. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, is praying for a direction to the non-petitioner for not terminating his services from June 5, 1989 and to regularise the services of the petitioner.

2. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent Rajasthan State Text Book Depot, Bi-lara (referred to hereinafter as 'the Bilara Depot') is a registered dealer of the stationery and book selling to the schools from Class I to Class VIII and the work continues throughout the year. According to him, the gross family income of the petitioner is less than Rs. 3,500 per year as per the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. He submits that he had moved an application to the respondent Manager of the Bilara Depot for appointment on the post of peon and he was appointed as peon on daily wages on May 6, 1983 and his services were terminated on October 31, 1983. He had completed 179 days @ Rs. 9/- per day. It is submitted that he was again appointed as peon on daily wages on June 16, 1984 @ Rs. 8/- per day but his services were again terminated on November 30, 1984 and he had completed 168 days. According to the petitioner, right from June 16, 1984 to August 17, 1988 he had been working with the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was again appointed on June 10, 1985 and the services were terminated on October 7, 1985 and he worked for 120 days. He was again appointed on June 19, 1986 up to September 30, 1986 and he worked for 104 days. The petitioner was appointed on June 1, 1987 upto July 31, 1987 and he had worked for 61 days and the petitioner was again given appointment on May 19, 1988 up to July 17, 1988 and worked for 60 days as per Annex. 1. The petitioner submits that he was again appointed on April 6, 1989 on daily wages @ Rs. 14/- per day on the post of peon and he had the apprehension that he may again be removed from service from June 5, 1989. The petitioner submits that he is working against a permanent vacancy and, therefore, he prays that the post of peon be offered to him on permanent basis.

3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted by the respondents that selling of text books is normally done by the respondent No. 2 at the start of the academic session in the months of June and July each year. Some casual persons are appointed as book lifters in these two months and after selling of the books the main work of the selling is over and the persons appointed on daily wages are relieved. It is also stated that some times because of leave vacancy one or two persons are also appointed according to the need. It is submitted that in the book shop there is only one other employee working called the Manager or Jncharge and one person engaged as book lifter who is appointed in the month of June-July and for other period the so-called Incharge or Manager works himself. According to the respondents it is just like a shop selling text books during the academic session. It is stated that the petitioner had mixed up with the said Manager/Incharge who is said to have offered him the post of peon in the month of April, 1989 which the Manager/Incharge cannot do as he was not authorised to do so. It is denied that there is any permanent post with the respondents and it is further submitted that it is only during the period of June and July that some extra hands are employed to cope with the work of selling of text books and the petitioner is similarly employed for one or two months in a year. It has been categorically stated that there is no vacant post available on which the petitioner could be adjusted.

4. The averments made in the written statement have been controverted by way of rejoinder. It is stated that in addition to the post of Incharge/Manager there is another person Om Prakash who is working as night watchman and Om Prakash holds a permanent post.

5. On June 1, 1989 an interim stay order was granted by this Court which interim stay order was to last only up to July 31, 1989. This Court had passed another order and the respondents were restrained from terminating the services of the petitioner before July 31, 1989 and this order was confirmed on December 1, 1989 i.e., the interim order dated June 1, 1989 by passing the order as follows:

'The interim stay order dated June 1, 1989 is confirmed to be operative till last decision of the writ petition. (Kindly see original order in the main file).

B.O. Sd/-Reader.'

6. On December 1, 1989 this Court had confirmed the interim stay order dated June 1, 1989 till the decision of the writ petition.

7. On the pleadings of the petitioner, there is no merit whatsoever in the writ petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has no right to continue on the post. Only because of the reason that because of the start of the academic session, the daily wages appointment for two months or so was given to the petitioner in the year 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988 in a book shop being maintained by the respondent No. 1 or 2, it cannot be said that the petitioner had acquired any right. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner had worked continuously throughout the year or substantial part of the year. Admittedly the petitioner had been offered the job for a limited period in a year i.e. 1,2,3 or 4 months and even some times against the leave vacancy. There is no continuous working by the petitioner in the shop. Nor the writ petition is maintainable on the apprehension that the petitioner's services were likely to be terminated. The writ petition has no merit whatsoever and is to be dismissed.

However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stay order issued about 6-7 years back if the petitioner is still continuing in the shop continuously, it shall be very harsh for the petitioner if he is removed from the service. Even though the petitioner has no right to the job but in case the petitioner is continuing in view of the stay order granted by this Court as reproduced above, he shall not be removed from the job and if any right had accrued to him because of any instructions issued by the Government and if any vacancy is available, he shall be adjusted accordingly.

8. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.