Dismissed

State of Raj andORS v. Raju Lal

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2015SAW/186/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Special Appeal by the State, upholding the Single Judge's consent order. It directed the State to create 1880 substantive posts for cooks and langaris at police stations, pay them the minimum regular pay scale, and frame a regularization scheme, finding their long-term service invalidates the 'part-time' claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to create 1880 substantive posts, pay minimum regular pay scale, and frame a regularization scheme; respondent to be reinstated.

State of Raj andORS Vs Raju Lal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

:: JUDGMENT ::

¶4

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.186/ 2015 The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Raju Lal

¶5

20.04.2015

¶6

HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. SUNI L AMBW ANI HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶7

Mr.Inderjeet Singh, Additional Advocate General for the State-appellants. Mr.Amin Ali for the respondent.

¶8

¶9

Repor t able

¶10

This Special Appeal has been filed with the delay of 351 days, against the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2013, by which, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition was disposed of, in the light of the judgment in Gopal Singh Vs. St at e & Or s., 2 0 1 0 ( 4 ) W LC ( Raj .) 19 0 . The short order passed by learned Single Judge is quoted below: -

¶11

“Learned counsel for both the parties agree for disposal of the writ petition in the light of the judgment in the case of Gopal Sin gh Vs. St at e & Or s. r epor t ed in 2 0 1 0( 4 ) W LC ( Raj .) 1 9 0 .

¶12

In view of above, this writ petition disposed of and is ordered to be governed by the judgment in the case of Gopal Singh (supra). The direction given in the case of Gopal Singh (supra) would apply to the present writ petition also.

¶13

The action pursuant to the direction, given above, be taken by the respondent/ s within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This disposes of the stay application as well.”

¶14

The delay is sought to be explained in the affidavit of Satish Kumar, Circle Officer, Neem Ka Thana Police Station, District Sikar, on

¶15

¶16

the ground that the matter was sent to the Head Office alongwith the legal opinion of the counsel for the department. The matter was examined at the Head Office level, and was further sent to the Administrative Department for taking a final decision in the matter, for filing the Special Appeal. The matter was examined and the decision was taken for filing the Special Appeal, against the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2013, and thereafter the officer incharge was appointed, and approached the counsel for the department, who drafted the Special Appeal without any delay.

¶17

The grounds for condonation of delay are entirely vague, as the necessary particulars with regard to the date when the matter was sent to the Administrative Department, and was thereafter re-sent to the Administrative Department, and the date, on which the administrative approval was given, has not been provided.

¶18

We also find substance in the objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent, that the order under challenge is a consent order, to dispose of the writ petition, in the light of the judgment in Gopal Singh's case (supra), and thus, the Special Appeal

¶19

is not maintainable.

¶20

In order to appreciate, whether there was any error of law in the directions given in Gopal Singh's case (supra), against which the Special Appeal has been dismissed, we have examined the judgment and find that in the year 1981 by the administrative order dated 22.12.1981, 903 posts of Cook were created in various Police Stations/ Police Lines in the State, divided into three categories. A total number of 133 Cooks posted in City/ GRP Police Stations and 200 Cooks posted in GRP and Police Lines. The 300 Cooks were to be paid

¶21

¶22

Rs.200/ - per month, 161 Cooks working in 92 City Police Stations were to be paid Rs.150/ - per month and 409 Cooks working in the remaining Police Stations were to be paid a sum of Rs.100/ - per month.

¶23

The argument that the Cooks were not employed in the Police Stations in the regular pay scale, was not accepted, inasmuch as the Court found that the Cooks are working since the year 1981. The respondents produced various circulars, including the circular dated 28.10.1995 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Reorganisation), Police Headquarters, Jaipur, addressed to all Superintendents of Police of various districts and the various Deputy Inspector General of Police of different ranges, notifying that in view of the statement given by the Home Minister of the State, replying to the budgetary grants of the year 1995-96, the strength of part-time Cooks was increased, and accordingly, 78 more posts were created and monthly salary was increased to Rs.800/ - per month. Subsequently, the Additional Director General of Police, by Circular dated 29.05.1999, increased the monthly salary of such Cooks/ Langaris to Rs.1000/ - per month. On 05.02.2005, another Circular was issued by the Additional Director General of Police on the basis of the Government Order dated 03.11.2004, creating 120 more posts of part-time Cooks, increasing the salary to Rs.1250/ - per month. By yet another Government Order dated 09.04.2007, as per the announcement made by the Home Minister on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, the monthly honorarium of part-time Cooks was increased from 1250/ - to Rs.1500/ - per month with effect from 01.04.2007. At the time when Gopal Singh (supra) judgment was delivered, the Cooks were being

¶24

¶25

paid Rs.1500/ - per month for preparing food for the police staff and under trial prisoners. Learned Single Judge found that the system of retaining Cooks at different Police Stations/ Police Lines of the State, has continued since the year 1981, but that, these Cooks were being paid partly an amount, which at the time of delivery of judgment in Gopal Singh's case (supra) on 28.05.2009 was Rs.1500/ - per month. It was found that the engagement of Cooks/ Langaris for nominal payment for preparing food for police staff and under trial prisoners, was violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Gopal Singh's case (supra) was allowed, with directions that all such part-time Cooks and Langaris will be paid minimum of the regular pay scale of the concerned post; with further directions to regularize them, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Secr et ar y , St at e of Kar n at ak a Vs. Um a Dev i ( 3) , ( 2 0 0 6 ) 4 SCC 1 .

¶27

Learned Additional Advocate General states that there are no substantive posts of Cooks, created by the State Government, and thus, the direction to pay minimum salary, and further direction to regularize them, is de hors the directions issued in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra).

¶28

On examining the facts of the case, as have been set out in the writ petition, and the judgment in Gopal Singh's case (supra), we find that the State Government was in permanent need of the post of Cooks/ Langaris, at the different Police Stations, for preparing food for the police personnel and under trial prisoners. The State Government has consistently increased the number of posts from time to time.

¶29

¶30

Initially, in the year 1981, 903 posts were created on the nominal salary, which has now been increased to 1880 posts for part-time Cooks/ Langaris.

¶31

In the Circular dated 22.12.1981, there was no mention of the term “part-time”, while creating the posts of Cooks/ Langaris @ Rs.200/ - per month for 300 Cooks in City Police Stations/ Police Lines; 161 @ Rs.150/ - per month in 92 City Police Stations, and 409 in the remaining Police Stations, @ Rs.100 per month. The expression “parttime” appears to have been used, for the first time, in the year 199596, when 78 more posts were created, and the monthly salary was increased to Rs.800/ - per month.

¶32

It is difficult to believe that the Cooks/ Langaris working at the Police Stations, cooking meals, both for the police personnel and the under trial prisoners, in the morning and evening, were engaged on part-time basis. Their continuous need, increase in the number of posts and the emoluments paid, and its increase from Rs.100/ - per month to Rs.3500/ - per month, at present, establishes that their services are required, and that, the State Government can no longer treat them as part-time employee, for low payment, in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 23 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Section 23 prohibits ' begaar' . Any amount, less than the minimum salary or emoluments, paid to the regular employees, amounts to ' begaar ', and is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Although we find that the question of payment of minimum of the regular pay scale and the regularization, until the substantive posts are created, is different, the Cooks/ Langaris for such a long period of time, cannot be allowed in the year 2015 @ Rs.3500/ - per month,

¶34

¶35

which is less than the minimum wage paid notified to unskilled worker in the State.

¶36

The appeal against the judgment in Gopal Singh's case (supra) was dismissed. We are informed that there is no interim order in the Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court.

¶37

In the present case, the appellant admittedly was engaged as a Cook/ Langari in the Mess at Police Station, Neem Ka Thana in the year 1995, as admitted in para 2 of the reply given to the writ petition, on a fixed remuneration, in terms of the order dated 22.12.1981 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In the letter of the Director General of Police dated 15.02.2012, it is stated that in the different districts/ units of Police Department, 1880 parttime Cooks/ Langaris are working. They were divided into two categories, namely, those who have completed ten years of service, and those, who have not completed ten years of service. So far as the petitioner Shri Raju Lal S/ o Shri Arjun Lal is concerned, his name has been included in the list of those persons, who have completed ten years of service.

¶38

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to take a different view, than in Gopal Singh's case (supra). All the Cooks/ Langaris, who have completed ten years of service working in Police Stations/ Police Lines in the State, drawing Rs.3500/ - per month, are entitled to be given minimum of the pay scale, applicable to Class IV employee in the Police Department. After about 34 years, it cannot be said that the services of the Cooks/ Langaris, are not required or that, they are still employed on part-time basis, and thus, we are of the opinion that even if the substantive

¶39

¶40

posts have not been created in the Police Department, considering the need of their employment, the State Government must create 1880 substantive posts of the Cooks/ Langaris, and pay them minimum of the pay scale, and also to frame a scheme to consider them for regularization, in accordance with the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra).

¶41

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Special Appeal is dismissed, with direction to the State Government to consider to create substantive posts of 1880 Cooks/ Langaris, and to pay all the Cooks/ Langaris working in the Police Department, minimum of the pay scale, and to frame a scheme for their regularization, in accordance with the directions issued in Secr et ar y , St at e of Kar n at ak a Vs. Um a Dev i ( 3 ) , ( 20 0 6) 4 SCC 1 . The application for condonation of delay is disposed of.

¶42

In the end, we observe that the petitioner was disengaged, despite an interim order dated 05.02.2012, which provided that if the petitioner is working, he will not be removed. It is apparent from the record that despite the continuance of the interim order, the petitioner was disengaged. Now since by consent order, learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to give benefit of Gopal Singh's judgment (supra) to the respondent, he will be reinstated forthwith and paid minimum of the pay scale. The gap in the petitioner's services will not be taken into account, while considering him for regularization, in pursuance to the directions, as above.

¶43

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( SUNI L AMBW ANI ) , CJ.

¶44

Skant/ -, Proof Reader

¶45

¶46

Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed.

¶47

Shashi Kant Gaur , Pr oof Reader

State of Raj andORS v. Raju Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj andORS v. Raju Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Mittal Vs Shri Fawad Khan and Ors.

Lakhpat Jain Vs Pradeep Somani andANR

The Indian Hume Pipe Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Narendra Rathi and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

State of Aj and Ors. Vs Shri Bhagwan

Lakshmi Narain Nehra and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.