Gyan Singh And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 306 Del

JUDGMENT

S.D. Pandit, J.

(1) Petitioners were working as motivators in the Scheme of Jan Shikshan Nilayam sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi, under the Nehru Yuva Kendra for social education activities for spread of general awareness, eradication of illiteracy, removal of exploitation among women and weaker sections. They were under the control of Regional Director for Haryana region, petitioners were being paid monthly stipend of Rs.200.00 and Rs.l25.00 towards library expenses. the respondent issued two memos bearing Nos.5099/NYKD/92 dated 23.6.92 and 5096/NYKD/92-93 dated 23.6.92 anc closed the various kendras which were being run under the said scheme and discontinued the engagements of the petitioners. It is the claim of the petitioners that the said memos are illegal and arbitrary and their services are terminated illegally and arbitrarily. According to them, as they had formed the Zilla Parerak Association and had made a demand for the pay scale of Rs-1400-2600 and other consequential benefits in September 1991, their services were terminated. They have come before this Court for quashing the memos dated 23.6.92, by which their services are terminated and for reinstating them and to direct the respondents to pay them in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600.

(2) It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were never in any employment. The Scheme of Jan Shikshan Nilayam in which they .were engaged was started in November 1988 in order to intuitionalist post literacy and continuing education for providing classes, libraries, training programmes, sports and other activities established in rural areas which are deficient in these facilities. The social workers who we willing to participate in such a scheme were being put in charge of Jan Shakshan Nilayam were known as Pareraks and there was no payment made to them by way of pay or wages. A Parerak had a job of few hours in a week and he was being paid a fixed honorarium of Rs.200.00 per month. Pareraks are socially spirited persons who volunteer to served the society without any benefit to themselves. They are not in any way the employees of Nehru Yuva Sanghthan and, therefore, there is no question of termination of their services. According to them the petitioners were never employed or appointed in the service of the respondents and the centres which they were running were decided to be closed and have been closed and the said closure is neither illegal nor arbitrary and, consequently, there is no infringement of any legal or statutory rights of the petitioners. Thus, they contended that the present petitioners' petition is misconceived and the same is not tenable, as has been held by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in CW.6439/91 titled Rajender Singh & others Vs. Nehru Yuva Kendra and Others decided on 12.5.1992.

(3) It is an admitted fact that the present petitioners were not appointed, in pursuance of any advertisement or on account of any regular post available with the respondents. The respondents have produced the booklet issued regarding running of these centers-known as Jan Shikshan Nilayam and the functions of the said centre are mentioned in para No.8 of the said bookled, which read as under:

8.The following are the functions of a JSN:

(I)An evening class - for upgradation of literacy and numeric skills to be organized for 3-4 hours once a week. The learners would have the option to come for an hor or so at the time of their convenience on that day.

(II)A Library - for which books would be purchased from the non-recurring arid recurring provisions; copies of old journals will be maintained and useful booklets relating to development programmes will be published by concerned agencies.

(III)A Reading room -with wallpapers, and newspapers appropriate for adult learners, informative and entertaining journals, developmental literature etc.

(IV)A Charcha Mandal (Discussion group) - for discussion on common problems.

(V)Training Programmers- simple and of short duration, relating to such subjects as health and family welfare, new developments in agriculture and animal husbandry, conservation of energy, improved chulha, etc. Jsn may also help the local youth to benefit from various vocational training programmes.

(VI)Sports and adventurous activities - the stress being on indigenous sports, walking excursions, cycling trips in groups, etc. if savings are available, visit by bus to development projects could also be arranged.

(VII)Recreational and cultural activities - Particular additional and folk forms of art, rural theatre, puppetry, etc.

(VIII)An Information Window - for securing information on various developmental programmes; information and material suitable for neo- liberates has to be procured from the concerned development agencies.

(IX)a communication Centre - where community adio, audio cassette. player-cum-recorder may be provided. To begin with Tv and Vcr may also be provided in the JSNs of 40 Technology Demonstration Districts (TDDs).

(4) If the above objects are taken into consideration then it would be quite clear that petitioners who were running the said centre were to work for only 3/4 hours once in a week and the learners had the option to come for an hour at their convenience on the day so fixed by the petitioners. The petitioners were not being paid any amount and they were allowed to organise the said centre of their own volition. The training which was to bu given to the petitioners was of only three weeks. They were not to undergo any special training and they were not to carry out any work for fixed hours. If the whole scheme is seen them it would be quite clear that it was a scheme for aiding the social workers who wanted to do social work in their area in the field of literacy and general awareness in the rural area. The memos in question clearly show that when it was found that the role in running the centre played by the petitioners was nil, it was decided to close down the said centres. Consequently, it could not be said that any legal right or fundamental right of the petitioners was infringed by the said action of the respondents.

(5) It is very pertinent to note that in the petition the petitioners have nowhere stated as to for how many hours they were working; what type of work they were carrying; and whether they had maintained any record of the work that they had done. They have also not produced on record any material to show that the posts of Pareraks were either statutory or created under any rules and regulations of the respondents. They have nowhere pleaded or shown as to on what basis they were claiming the pay scale of Rs-1400-2600. They have not shown as to whether the job performed by them was equivalent to the work done in any other particular post under the respondent or the government. It seems that they are induced to file the present petition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case Dhirendra Chamoli & another Vs. State of U.P. , but the facts of that case and the present case are quite different. In that case petitioners Dhirendra Chamoli and Mohan Singh 46 were employees of Nehru Yuvak Kendra, Dehradun on daily wage basis for nearly 12 years and they were doing the jobs of peons and, therefore, in that case the Supreme Court had directed the government to pay them salary and allowances of Class Iv employees from the date when they were respectively employed. In the case before us the petitioners were never employed. They had only been allowed by the respondents to run the centre under the scheme of Jan Shikshan Nilayam by way of aiding the social work which they were carrying out in their area and they were allowed to run the said centres for which they were being paid fixed honorarium @Rs.200.00 per month and Rs.125.00 towards library and other expenses. Thus, in the case before us the petitioners were carrying out social work and, they were to get honorarium as their work was falling within the scheme run by the respondents. Thus, the petitioners had never been employed by the respondents in any temporary or permanent post. Consequently, their claim is misconceived.

(6) The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice G.S. Singhvi, has taken a similar view in. CW.6439191 titled Rajender Singh & Others Vs. Nehru Yuva Kendra & Others decided on 12.5.199, by holding that when the posts did not exist no direction can possibly be given for regularization of the services of the petitioners. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and hold that the petitioners were never employed in any post by the respondents. There is no termination of any employment and, consequently, they cannot get the reliefs sought for. The petition deserves to be dismissed. We dismiss the same with no order as to costs.