Disposed

Vivek Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2016CW/15182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging fixed remuneration for probationers relied on a prior Division Bench judgment quashing such practice. The court allowed the petition but stayed its advantages for six months pending the Supreme Court's decision on the SLP filed by the State.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed but advantages stayed for six months; petitioners directed to file undertaking not to file contempt petition.

Vivek Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

SBCWP No.15182/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15182/2016

¶6

Vivek Sharma & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

Date of order: 7^th November, 2016.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Mr. G.S. Gautam, for the petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl. Government Counsel, for the respondents.

¶10

The petitioners were appointed as Teacher Grade III. The petitioners were appointed as Probationer Trainee on fixed remuneration @ 4450/- per month for a period of two years. In the present petition, a grievance has been made that the petitioners during the period of probation were entitled to payment of salary in the regular pay scale and action of the respondents to pay fixed remuneration during the period of probation is not legally tenable.

¶11

The controversy raised in the present petition is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Kumawat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007 , decided on 29.7.2015, has held as under:-

¶12

“34. We find no justification for the State Government, to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the Central Government, or in any other States in the country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice of forced labour for its employees, taking advantage of the attraction of the Government service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of the Constitution of India, and against the conscience of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay

¶14

SBCWP No.15182/2016

¶15

¶16

Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby quashed. The State-respondents are directed to pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the period of probation.

¶17

Now since by this judgment, we have declared the Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, to be unconstitutional and consequently quashed the same, we direct that the State Government shall, pay to all its employees, appointed on regular or ad hoc basis under the statutory Rules on substantive posts, except the employees appointed on contract, daily rated or work charged employees, regular pay in time scale along with all allowances including Special Pay, Dearness Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Non-Practicing Allowance, Non-Clinical Allowance. Rural Allowance, Project Allowance, Mess Allowance, Washing Allowance or any other allowance, as are admissible to a confirmed employee in the same department. The payment of these allowances will not be dependent upon the period of probation, or successful completion of the period of probation. The probationer-trainees will also be entitled to deductions towards General Provident Fund(GPF), State Insurance, and Travelling Allowance, as are admissible and payable to the regular employees. They shall also be entitled to annual grade increments for the period of probation, after confirmation and Casual Leave, as in the case of other regular employees.”

¶18

Since the Notification whereby fixed remuneration was to be

¶19

given to the Probationer Trainee was quashed by the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed in Gopal Kumawat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007 , decided on 29.7.2015.

¶20

SBCWP No.15182/2016

¶21

¶22

At this juncture, Dr. A.S. Khangarot, the learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Kumawat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) has been assailed before the Supreme Court by filing SLP. The learned counsel has very fairly stated that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court till today.

¶23

Due to pendency of the SLP filed by the State of Rajasthan, it is ordered that the petitioners shall file an undertaking stating that they shall not file Contempt Petition for a period of six months to enable the State of Rajasthan to await final decision from the Supreme Court. The petitioners shall state in the undertaking to be filed before the employer that they shall abide by the decision of the Supreme Court as same shall save the State of Rajasthan from multiplicity of litigation.

¶24

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA), J.

¶25

Mak/-

¶26

167

Vivek Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Sharma and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aatma Ram Vs State Education Departmentors

Fakrudin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Veena Rani Vs University of Raj and Anr.

Sonu @ Surendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

M/S Milap Transport Road Lines Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan