Allowed

Gouri Shankar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2018CW/5830/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition, holding that the petition succeeded based on the precedent set in Jagdeep Prasad. The court directed the respondents to accord the petitioner the appointment if suitable and ensure compliance within four weeks, granting consequential benefits from the date other identically placed candidates were appointed.

What did the court decide?

Accord appointment to petitioner if suitable; ensure compliance within four weeks; petitioner entitled to consequential benefits from the date identically placed candidates were appointed.

Gouri Shankar 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. 5830/2018

¶3

Gouri Shankar S/o Shri Sharwan Teji, By-Caste Harijan, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Girja Ghar Ke Pass Harijan Basti Beawar District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Secretary, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Department Of Local Body, Government Of Rajasthan, Near Civil Line, Jaipur.

¶8

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.I. Abbasi For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

20/03/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset, submits that controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdeep Prasad Vs. State of Raj & Anr.: SBCWP No. 13676/2014, decided on 12^th April, 2017, after accorded an opportunity of hearing to the State-respondents.

¶15

It is further urged that under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safari Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (for short, Rules of 2012), there is no contemplation to the effect that only one member of the family can be accorded appointment under the Rules. Further, the adjudication in the case of Jagdeep Prasad (supra) has

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-5830/2018]

¶18

attained finality for it was not challenged any further by the Staterespondents.

¶19

Learned counsel further urged that instant writ application be also disposed of in terms of the order in the case of Jagdeep Prasad (supra).

¶20

From a glance of the order made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdeep Prasad (supra), it is reflected that several other writ applications on the same issue were also considered and decided deprecating such a restriction where only one member of the family was permitted to seek appointment under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, and/or Rules of 2012.

¶21

In case of Jagdeep Prasad (supra) taking not of these facts the Coordinate Bench of this Court, observed thus:

¶22

“It is submitted that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by Co-ordinate Benches as well as by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6183/2014 Mala Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 28.01.2015 as well as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6565/2014 Harphul Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 30.03.2016. This Court also in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11019/2012 decided on 25.01.2017 has taken the similar view that the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 do not put any embargo on appointment of candidate whose family is in service. The Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 which have been amended also did not lay down any such embargo for barring appointment of two members of the same family. Therefore, a circular which goes beyond the provisions of Rules and contrary to the same, cannot be allowed to stand and the respondents could not have relied upon circular dt. 23.01.2013 and 03.05.2013 to terminate the service of the petitioner to frustrate the interim order passed in the writ petition preferred by his wife Jyoti Rani as noted above.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-5830/2018]

¶26

order dt. 14.11.2014 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post which he was holding prior to passing of order dt. 14.11.2014 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner would also be entitled to receive back wages for the intervening period as he has been forcefully denied to perform his duties. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Mandal, Bandikui, Dausa, who passed the order shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner which shall be recovered from his salary.”

¶27

In view of the above; the instant writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

¶28

The respondents are directed to do the needful and accord appointment to the petitioner, if he is otherwise found suitable.

¶29

All the consequential benefits shall be admissible to the petitioner on the notional basis from the date identically placed candidates, were accorded appointment.

¶30

Respondents would ensure compliance of this order as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶32

SS/277

Gouri Shankar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouri Shankar 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

Saroj Garwa Vs State Panchayati Raj Anr.

Rajendra Sharma Vs Naveen Mahajan and Ors.

Kalyan Vs Kalyan Singh andORS

Leela Dhar Vs R P S C Ajmer

Saroj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp