Court Compound, U.I.T. Water Hut, Alwar (Rajasthan) vs Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar through its Secretary.

Judgment

2. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar through its Secretary. The Director, National Capital Region Project & Secretary, U.I.T. Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner

: Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj Advocate. For Respondents : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement Order : : 07/08/2025 13/08/2025

1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 31.07.2001 issued by Respondent No. 2, the Director, National Capital Region Project & Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, whereby, services of the petitioner have been terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working at Water Hut constructed in Office of Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (for short ‘UIT’) and established near the Court Compound from 15.12.1982. However, the petitioner was being paid only Rs. 50/- per month and feeling aggrieved by such exploitation, she filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4265/1999 before this Court, in which, a prayer with regard to [2025:RJ-JP:30388] (2 of 4) [CW-4148/2001] regularisation of the petitioner on the post of Water Woman was made. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2001, whereby, although the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to regularisation was declined, yet a direction was issued to grant her minimum of the pay scale of the post of Class IV Employee till she is allowed to continue to work and such relief was granted from the date of filing of aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4265/1999.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted aforesaid order dated 16.01.2001 passed in the aforesaid writ petition in the office of the respondents and requested for making compliance of the same, however, annoyed by this, in a quite malicious manner, petitioner’s services were terminated vide order dated 31.07.2001 without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Such order, as per the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital & Others Vs. Munna Prasad Saini & Another (Civil Appeal No. 5810 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9097 of 2019 decided on 20.09.2021), wherein compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) was awarded to the concerned employee and submits that similar relief may also be granted to the petitioner.

4. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents categorically denying the averments made in the writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:30388] (3 of 4) [CW-4148/2001]

5. It was submitted in the reply that no appointment order whatsoever was ever issued in favour of the petitioner to appoint her on any basis. She was not working against any post, nor was there any encadered post available in UIT. Further, it was stated that the petitioner was allowed to work only on humanitarian grounds and when the work was closed down under financial policy of the State, impugned order was passed discontinuing the petitioner. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not having any vested right to hold the post. Therefore, there was no requirement to conduct any enquiry prior to her termination or even to afford her any opportunity of hearing.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

7. It is admitted case of the petitioner that no appointment order whatsoever was ever issued in her favour and as per her version, the petitioner was orally asked to work as Water Woman at the Water Hut in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to show any document proving her appointment in respondent-UIT, except the impugned order dated

31.07.2001 discontinuing the petitioner.

8. I have also considered order dated 16.01.2001 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4265/1999 wherein this Court has specifically denied benefit of regularisation to the petitioner and even the benefit of minimum of the pay scale was directed to be granted till the petitioner is allowed to continue to work. As such, no direction whatsoever was issued by this Court against discontinuance of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:30388] (4 of 4) [CW-4148/2001]

9. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of engaging the employees without following due process of selection and the State has also been directed not to indulgence in such activities in future. In these circumstances, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish any right in her favour and I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

10. I have respectfully considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital & Others (supra) and find that the same is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had recorded a finding that the termination of concerned workman in that case was contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, instead of granting benefit of reinstatement, thought it proper to grant lump sum compensation. The facts in the instant case are entirely different. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case.

11. In the light of foregoing discussion, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed.

12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J