Allowed

Ganesh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2018CW/2425/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition by 118 safai employees seeking confirmation and service benefits. The High Court held that the pendency of an investigation cannot defeat the mandate of service rules granting confirmation upon satisfactory performance, especially when the agency submitted a negative final report finding no illegality. The court reversed the respondents' refusal to confirm the pe

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to confirm petitioners under Rule 11 of the 2012 Rules, grant regular pay scale, release arrears with interest, and complete the process within two months.

Ganesh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2425/2017

¶4

Ganesh S/o Garibdas, R/o Harijan Basti, Behind Fort, Ward No. 2, Phalodi, District- Jodhpur.

¶5

Raju S/o Tarachand.

¶6

Shiva S/o Prakash.

¶7

Mahesh S/o Garibdas.

¶8

Rekha D/o Parasmal.

¶9

Dhanraj S/o Madanlal.

¶10

Sanju W/o Dinesh.

¶11

Om Prakash S/o Babulal.

¶12

Kamal S/o Liladhar.

¶13

Kamla W/o Dhalaram.

¶14

Lakshmi W/o Papuram.

¶15

Anu W/o Bhanwarlal.

¶16

Durga W/o Lalaram

¶17

Mukesh S/o Bhatiram.

¶18

Aaychuki W/o Ranaram.

¶19

Anil S/o Tarachand.

¶20

Devki W/o Narendra.

¶21

Kamla W/o Devaram.

¶22

Bali S/o Hansraj

¶23

Gordhan S/o Dhanraj

¶24

Tarachand S/o Dhanraj

¶25

Kiran W/o Shyamlal

¶26

Ajay S/o Ambalal.

¶27

Girdhari S/o Dwarkadas.

¶28

Kanchan W/o Rooparam.

¶29

Ravi S/o Asulal.

¶30

Sunita W/o Badrilal.

¶31

Seeta W/o Poonamchand.

¶32

Manish S/o Atmaram.

¶33

Kishori W/o Jhanwarlal.

¶34

Baby W/o Lalit Kumar

¶35

(2 of 9)

¶36

[CW-2425/2017]

¶37

Champa W/o Badrilal.

¶38

Jitendra S/o Sayarmal.

¶39

Motilal S/o Banshilal

¶40

Cheni W/o Chinaram.

¶41

Pista W/o Bhikamchand.

¶42

Ashok S/o Ramchandra.

¶43

Ramesh S/o Ramchandra.

¶44

Indu W/o Ramesh Kumar.

¶45

Dhanraj S/o Sagarmal.

¶46

Narendra S/o Sagarmal.

¶47

Gulabi W/o Amrit Lal.

¶48

Jitendra S/o Kishorilal.

¶49

Gomti W/o Dhaglaram.

¶50

Ashok S/o Parasmal.

¶51

Sanju W/o Ashok.

¶52

Amit S/o Suresh Kumar.

¶53

Bilaki Das S/o Ganpatram.

¶54

Jitendra S/o Ganpatram.

¶55

Shravan S/o Baksaram.

¶56

Gautam S/o Dwarka Prasad.

¶57

Vikas S/o Liladhar.

¶58

Rajuram S/o Nathuram.

¶59

Rakesh S/o Shyamlal.

¶60

Anil S/o Pukhraj.

¶61

Sarla W/o Vishnu.

¶62

Veena W/o Ranjeet.

¶63

Guddi W/o Ambalal.

¶64

Subhash S/o Panchulal.

¶65

Sarita W/o Omprakash.

¶66

Kamal S/o Omprakash.

¶67

Raju S/o Girdhari.

¶68

Vinod S/o Omprakash.

¶69

Ghanshyam S/o Rameshchandra.

¶70

Manu Barasa S/o Jagdish.

¶71

(3 of 9)

¶72

[CW-2425/2017]

¶73

Devilal S/o Kojaram.

¶74

Bhomaram S/o Somaram.

¶75

Mukesh S/o Daulal.

¶76

Sunil S/o Rajendra Kumar.

¶77

Nirma W/o Babulal.

¶78

Rajesh S/o Kaluram.

¶79

Vishnu Kumar S/o Norataram.

¶80

Amit S/o Pukhraj.

¶81

Ramniwas S/o Jagdish.

¶82

Vikramjeet S/o Jeeturam.

¶83

Govind S/o Kanaram.

¶84

Ankesh Kumar S/o Rajuram.

¶85

Baby W/o Rajuram.

¶86

Tarachand S/o Fatehlal.

¶87

Pintulal S/o Pappuram.

¶88

Seema W/o Prahalad.

¶89

Ravi S/o Jugalkishore.

¶90

Sangeeta W/o Vijaykumar.

¶91

Vimla W/o Dharamchand.

¶92

Vimla W/o Mukesh.

¶93

Sushila W/o Shyamlal.

¶94

Guddi W/o Munnalal.

¶95

Nirma D/o Munnalal.

¶96

Rajesh Kumar S/o Fagunlal.

¶97

Sampat S/o Jagdish.

¶98

Indrajeet S/o Bhalesh.

¶99

Jackie S/o Lalaram.

¶100

Anchi W/o Uttamaram.

¶101

Pappudi W/o Harishchandra.

¶102

Pushpa W/o Ramesh.

¶103

Devi D/o Manaklal.

¶104

Kamal S/o Jasraj.

¶105

Rakesh Barasa S/o Jagdis Barasa.

¶106

Sunil Kumar S/o Gyaneshwar.

¶107

(4 of 9)

¶108

[CW-2425/2017]

¶109

Omprakash S/o Bhatiram.

¶110

Narpat S/o Bannaram.

¶111

Deepak S/o Bheekaram.

¶112

Manish S/o Champalal.

¶113

Rahul S/o Babulal.

¶114

Mukesh S/o Omprakash.

¶115

Vinod S/o Rameshandra.

¶116

Naresh S/o Devaram.

¶117

Manju W/o Ashok Kumar.

¶118

Nandki W/o Lalaram.

¶119

Rekha D/o Sukhdev.

¶120

Gordhan S/o Badrilal.

¶121

Lalit S/o Manaklal.

¶122

Sunil S/o Shyamlal.

¶123

Bhagwati W/o Raju.

¶124

Neetu W/o Arjun.

¶125

Monkia D/o Pawan Kumar.

¶126

Dinesh S/o Nandlal.

¶127

Pappu W/o Kishore, All Resident of C/o Petitioner No. 1 Ganesh S/o Garibdas age 34 years R/o Harijan Basti, Behind Fort, Ward No. 2, Phalodi, District- Jodhpur.

¶128

----Petitioners

¶129

Versus

¶130

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶131

The Director, Department of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶132

The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur.

¶133

----Respondents

¶134

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur & Mr. Sanjay Pandit.

¶135

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati for Mr. Hemant Parmar.

¶136

(5 of 9)

¶137

[CW-2425/2017]

¶138

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶139

Order

¶140

24/08/2018

¶141

Matter comes upon application for early listing of the matter.

¶142

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and matter is taken up for hearing today.

¶143

By the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for under -mentioned reliefs:-

¶144

“a) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to issue orders of confirmation of petitioners on the post of safai employee.

¶145

b) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed grant relief regular pay scale of safai employee to the petitioners.

¶146

c) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to release arrears of regular pay scale with interest to petitioners by treating them to be confirmed on the post of safai employee on expiry of two years of probation.

¶147

d) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may be directed to pay the amount less paid to them during the period of probation with interest.

¶148

e) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners;

¶149

f) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners.”

¶150

Bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this writ petition, are that pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2012 petitioners were recruited on the post of Safai Employee under the Municipal Board, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. The recruitment process was undertaken in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai

¶151

(6 of 9)

¶152

[CW-2425/2017]

¶153

Employees Service) Rules, 2012. Pursuant to the selection, the petitioners were appointed vide order dated 28^th of February 2014 and all of them joined their duty. It is, inter alia, averred in the petition that since inception of their service career, all of them are discharging their duties with utmost satisfaction, but the respondent Municipal Board has not allowed them requisite service benefits including the pay-scale of the post, which is consequential to confirmation upon successful completion of two years probation. .

¶154

On behalf of respondent, Municipal Board, reply is submitted. Precisely, in the reply Municipal Board has averred that an FIR No.11/2015 was registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau against members of the Selection Committee regarding certain irregularities or illegalities committed during the course of selection process. For non-issuance of confirmation orders vis-a vis petitioners Municipal Board has taken shelter of the pending investigation in the FIR aforesaid. It is further averred in the reply that petitioners are beneficiaries of a selection process which is subject matter of investigation for alleged illegalities and irregularities, therefore, uptil conclusion of investigation reliefs cannot be granted to them.

¶155

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lokesh Mathur, that after thorough investigation in the aforesaid FIR, Anti-Corruption Bureau has submitted negative final report on 25.07.2018 before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur. Learned counsel would contend that in the negative Final Report investigating agency has not found any illegality or

¶156

(7 of 9)

¶157

[CW-2425/2017]

¶158

irregularity in the selection process much less cogent prima facie evidence against the members of the Selection Committee for constituting charged offences. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that petitioners are entitled for confirmation and other service benefits upon successful completion of probation as per Rule 11 and 14 of the Rules of 2012. Learned counsel Mr. Mathur for substantiating this plea has also placed on record certified copy of the order-sheet dated 25.07.2018 of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur as well as negative Final Report submitted by the investigating agency.

¶159

Per contra, learned counsel for Municipal Board has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. However, learned counsel for Municipal Board has not disputed factum of completion of investigation and submission of negative Final Report. Learned counsel has further urged that complainant has submitted a protest petition against the negative Final Report.

¶160

I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at Bar.

¶161

Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is abundantly clear that the appointment order Annex.1 was issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Phalodi pursuant to selection of all the petitioners as Safai Employees. It is not in dispute that petitioners are discharging their duties as Safai Employees with the Municipal Board, Phalodi since February/March 2014 and completed their probation period of two years in the year 2016. From the reply submitted on behalf of respondent

¶162

(8 of 9)

¶163

[CW-2425/2017]

¶164

Municipal Board, it is abundantly clear that there was no complaint against the petitioners during probation period and their performance was satisfactory. In substance, the only plea sought to be raised by the Municipal Board is pending investigation in the aforesaid FIR for not confirming the petitioners and allowing them other service benefits. I am at loss to say that the grounds set out in the reply cannot defeat the mandate of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012, which envisage with clarity and precision that in the event of satisfactory performance unquestionable integrity and otherwise found by the appointing authority fit the incumbent employee is liable to be confirmed. In want of any whisper in the reply about lack of satisfactory performance of any of the petitioners or regarding their integrity and otherwise fitness, in my view mere pendency of investigation in a case cannot be a plausible ground to deny them benefit of confirmation and other service benefits. It is also noteworthy that now in the wake of changed circumstances when investigating agency has submitted negative Final Report so as to conclude that there was illegality or irregularity in the selection process much less prima facie evidence about the commission of alleged offences by any of the members of the Selection Committee, denial of confirmation and other benefits flowing from that status is highly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶165

In view of foregoing discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders qua petitioners under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012 for their confirmation and further allow them other service benefits flowing from their status as confirmed Safai Employee. The respondents

¶166

(9 of 9)

¶167

[CW-2425/2017]

¶168

are directed complete the entire process within a period of two months from today.

¶169

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶170

a.asopa/-

Ganesh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rustam Khan Vs State

Yatendra Sharma Vs Kunji Lal Meena and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi and Ors. Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Jaiprakash Jajra Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Anil Kumar Pahadia Vs State and Ors.

Ghanshyam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.