Allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2018CW/12770/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning the fixation of pay scale for a surplus government employee. Relying on a coordinate bench's judgment, the court directed the State to reconsider the petitioner's representation and decide on entitlement to the regular pay scale of the post within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed; State directed to reconsider petitioner's representation and fix regular pay scale with effect from date similarly situated persons were granted benefits, and decide within

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12770/2018

¶3

Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Rudaram , R/o Dhani Bankli, Ward No.4, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Presently Working On The Post Of Gram Sewak Cum Paden Sachiv Village Development Officer In Panchayat Samiti Khandela District Sikar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Govt. Of , Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Chief Executive Officer , Zila Parishad Sikar

¶8

Block Development Officer , Panchayat Samiti Khandela District Sikar

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. D. Meena For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

09/07/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the case of Jasvindra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 879/2012, decided on 31^st July, 2013, observing thus:

¶15

“11. As per Rule 282 of the Rules of 1996, when an employee of the State Government and of any Local Body, Panchayati Raj Institution, Corporation or Board controlled by the State Government s or is likely to be

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-12770/2018]

¶18

rendered surplus due to reduction/abolition of the post, he may be appointed by transfer to the service of Panchayati Raj institution on a post declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the post held by such employee immediately before such transfer.

¶19

As per sub Rule(2) of Rule 282, the list of such persons rendered surplus shall be sent by the parent employer to the Director, Panchayati Raj who shall out of such list select persons for posts in service for each district and allot the persons so selected to the District Establishment committee to the extent of vacancies in Panchayati Samiti and Zila Parishad concerned where the seniority of such person shall be fixed according to the provisions of the Rules of 1969.

¶20

Similarly, Rule 6 of the Rules of 1969 provides that for the purposes of absorption of the surplus personnel under Rule 7, the committee constituted by the State Government in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules shall equate the post held by surplus employees with the post or the class of the post keeping in view the nature of duties, qualification and pay scale attached to such post or class of posts.

¶21

It is not disputed before this court that before proceeding with the absorption/recruitment by transfer of the surplus employees, the petitioner and his likes, the posts held by them in their parent Department were equated with the post of Gram Sevak and thereafter, they were absorbed on the post of Gram Sevak in various Panchayat Samitees pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government in this regard.

¶22

It is pertinent to mention here that writ petition preferred by the work charged employees of Department of Forest being No. 8078/08 and other connected matters, who were accorded permanent status and regularised in service prior to they being declared surplus and absorption on the post, stand allowed by this court today and they have held entitled for grant of regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak with effect form their initial appointment. But, indisputably, the petitioner as a work charged employee had acquired only semi permanent status, on completion of two years service and therefore, cannot claim parity vis-a-vis other work charged employees whose service had already been regularised

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-12770/2018]

¶25

in their parent Department. Thus, the action of the respondents in not extending benefits of regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak to the petitioner in the first instance and fixing the pay in his existing pay scale, cannot be faulted with.

¶26

But then, the fact remains that the petitioner had undergone the requisite training and was discharging the same duties, which are being discharged by regularly appointed Gram Sevaks and therefore, the petitioner could not have been denied the payment of salary in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak for such a long period i.e. about ten years.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in contending that since the petitioner is discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Gram Sevaks appointed on the post by way of regular recruitment process and therefore, even on the basis of principle of ‘equal pay of equal work’, he is entitled to be fixed in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak extended to the similarly situated persons.

¶28

In view of the discussion above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement to be fixed in the regular pay scale admissible to the post of Gram Sevak and grant him the pay scale admissible to the post with effect from the date the persons similarly situated qua the petitioner have been extended the benefits thereof. No order as to costs.

¶29

Learned counsel further pointed out that an intra-court appeal instituted by the State-respondents has also been declined by the Division Bench vide order dated 2^nd September, 2015: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Number 239/2014.

¶30

It is further urged that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Jasvindra Singh

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-12770/2018]

¶33

(supra), which he is are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶34

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.

¶35

In case, a representation is so addressed within the period aforesaid, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶36

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶38

Pooja/134

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shashibala Sharma W/O Shri Anil Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Ramraj Raigar Vs State Education Department Ors.

Hetram Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services

Sandeep Son of Shri Jugal Kishor Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department

Kusumlata Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr Vs State Education Dep Ors.