Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16636 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ramraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has instituted this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for joining of the petitioner on the post of Rojgar Sewak. The reliefs sought by the petitioner read as under:
"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to join the petitioner in the post of the Rojgar Sewak.
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding, directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 03.11.2016 and 05.12.2016 made by the petitioner."
The petitioner was initially engaged as a Rojgar Sewak, Murtiya Nyay Panchayat - Lahas, Block Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra in the year 2006. It is stated that Gram Pradhan issued a certificate on 24.5.2008 for the renewal of petitioner's term on the post of Rojgar Sewak.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his honorarium has not been paid nor he was offered any work in the year 2016. When the petitioner enquired the reason for his discontinuance, he was orally informed that the payment is not being made because of his resignation from the said post.
It is stated that the petitioner contested the election of Gram Pradhan in the year 2015 and it appears that someone has used his signatures and submitted his resignation. It is further stated that the petitioner has not submitted his resignation and it is alleged that his resignation is a forged document and in this regard he has made complaint to the Police Station also.
The petitioner has made representations dated 3.11.2016 and 5.12.2016 for redressal of his grievance. The copies of said representations are on the record as annexure nos. 4 & 5 to the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without disclosing any reason are not taking work from the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that engagement of Rojar Sewaks is purely contractual and only for a year thus no mandamus can be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Concededly, the petitioner's engagement is on the basis of contract for a year. He was engaged in the year 2006 wherein it is clearly mentioned that his engagement is on contract basis.
As regards the Government Order dated 29.12.2014, it has clearly been mentioned therein that the amount sanctioned by the State Government shall be utilized only for the payment of arrears of honorarium.
Additionally, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (4) ADJ 317 (DB) (LB) has held that the engagement of Rojgar Sewaks is contractual in nature and is made for one year, expandable to another period of two years hence the Court has refused to interfere in the matter.
This Court in the case of Ramhit v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 16562 of 2016 has held that the appointment of Rojgar Sewaks is made under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the said Act is a Central Act and the scheme is implemented by the State Government. In the said judgment, the Court has referred two Government Orders dated 23.11.2007 and 25.8.2010 wherein it is provided that initial engagement of Rojgar Sewaks is made for one year and it restricts the continuance beyond two years and a fresh engagement is made after completion of two years.
In the case of Smt. Geeta Devi v. Uma Shanker Yadav and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 169 (DB) the Division Bench has held that a person who has completed his term cannot be appointed again.
In view of the above, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. As regards the grievance of the petitioner in respect of his arrears of honorarium, the petitioner has made a representation. He is at liberty to file a fresh representation within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order before the appropriate authority. In the event any such representation is made, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SKT/-