Disposed

Smt Maya and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2018CW/5056/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, manual scavengers from Malpura, challenged the delay in concluding the recruitment process initiated in 2012. Relying on Safai Karamchari Andolan, the court directed the State to conclude the process within three months or explain the reasons for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to file a comprehensive representation within two weeks and the State to conclude the recruitment process within three months or inform the reasons for delay.

Smt Maya and Ors. 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. 5056/2018

¶3

Smt. Maya W/o Dhanraj, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶4

Smt. Tanno W/o Shri Umesh Chand Goyar, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶5

Smt. Guddi W/o Ramesh Chand, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶6

Smt. Kavita W/o Roop Chand, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶7

Smt. Maya W/o Bhagchand, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶8

Smt. Maya W/o Vijay Kumar, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶9

Smt. Pinki W/o Rajesh, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶10

Smt. Mamta W/o Shivprakash, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶11

Smt. Reena W/o Kanhaiya Lal, B/c Valmiki (Sc), Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Dadabari, Harijan Colony, Malpura, District Tonk

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Govt., Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Director Cum Ex-Officio, Joint Secretary, Local Self Govt., Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur

¶16

The Municipal Council Tonk Through Its Commissioner

¶17

The Executive Officer, Municipalities Malpura, District Tonk

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CW-5056/2018]

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) :

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶23

08/03/2018

¶24

Referring to the adjudication by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors..: (2014) 11 SCC 224; learned counsel for the petitioners submits that recruitment process initiated as a consequence of the advertisement number 1/2012, dated 25^th May, 2012, has not been completed till date.

¶25

According to learned counsel, the petitioners are enlisted in the verified list of manual scavengers in Municipality Malpura, district Tonk, as would be evident from order dated 5^th November, 2014, issued by the Director cum Ex-officio, Joint Secretary, Local Self Govt., Jaipur.

¶26

It is further contended that circular dated 3^rd May, 2013 and 23^rd July, 2013, further contemplated priority in appointment to manual scavengers. However, the State-respondents while initiated the process of appointment in the year 2012 vide advertisement dated 25^th May, 2012, but till date the recruitment process has not been concluded for reasons best known to the State-respondents.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

(3 of 5)

¶29

[CW-5056/2018]

¶30

In the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan (supra), the Apex Court of the land after a detailed consideration of the issue in the backdrop of Article 21, 14, 17 and 23 of the Constitution of India so also taking note of the object of eradication of continued inhuman/obnoxious practice of manual scavenging and to enforce compliance of the provisions of Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, the Apex Court of the land made the following directions:

¶31

“23.1 The persons included in the final list of manual scavengers Under Sections 11 and 12 of the 2013 Act, shall be rehabilitated as per the provisions of Part IV of the 2013 Act, in the following manner, namely:

¶32

(a) such initial, one time, cash assistance, as may be prescribed;

¶33

b) their children shall be entitled to scholarship as per the relevant scheme of the Central Government or the State Government or the local authorities, as the case may be;

¶34

(c) they shall be allotted a residential plot and financial assistance for house construction, or a ready-built house with financial assistance, subject to eligibility and willingness of the manual scavenger as per the provisions of the relevant scheme;

¶35

(d) at least one member of their family, shall be given, subject to eligibility and willingness, training in livelihood skill and shall be paid a monthly stipend during such period;

¶36

(e) at least one adult member of their family, shall be given, subject to eligibility and willingness, subsidy and concessional loan for taking up an alternative occupation on sustainable basis, as per the provisions of the relevant scheme;

¶37

(f) shall be provided such other legal and programmatic assistance, as the Central Government or State Government may notify in this behalf.

¶38

23.2. If the practice of manual scavenging has to be brought to a close and also to prevent future generations from the inhuman practice of manual scavenging, rehabilitation of manual scavengers will need to include:

¶39

(a) Sewer deaths-entering sewer lines without safety gears should be made a crime even in emergency situations. For each such death, compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs should be given to the family of the deceased.

¶40

(b) Railways-should take time bound strategy to end manual scavenging on the tracks.

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[CW-5056/2018]

¶43

(c) Persons released from manual scavenging should not have to cross hurdles to receive what is their legitimate due under the law.

¶44

d) Provide support for dignified livelihood to safai karamchari women in accordance with their choice of livelihood schemes. 23.3. Identify the families of all persons who have died in sewerage work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending on them.

¶45

23.4. Rehabilitation must be based on the principles of justice and transformation.”

¶46

Keeping in view the directions issued by the Apex Court of the land as extracted hereinabove and the grievance of the petitioners wherein the recruitment process was initiated on 25^th May, 2012 vide advertisement number 1/2012, but recruitment process has not been concluded till date; the petitioners, for the present are required to address a comprehensive representation within two weeks hereinafter.

¶47

In case a representation is so addressed within the time aforesaid, the State-respondents would do the needful in the backdrop of law declared by Apex Court of the land gives directions under paragraph 23.1 to 23.4, as taken note of hereinabove, and do the needful to conclude the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.

¶48

This exercise shall be undertaken by respondents not later than three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented along with representation by the petitioners.

¶49

In case recruitment process in not completed as a consequence of advertisement dated 25^th May, 2012, the Staterespondents would inform the petitioners of the reasons thereof.

¶50

(5 of 5) [CW-5056/2018]

¶51

Needless to observe that the petitioners, if aggrieved by the

¶52

consequent determination, would be at liberty to avail of remedy in accordance with law, afresh.

¶53

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

¶54

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶55

Pooja/216

Smt Maya and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Maya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rohitash Singh Vs Ashok Singh

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.