Disposed

Sumitra Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2018SAW/1785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special application, a contract employee noted in a writ petition sought reinstatement and clarification. The High Court held that contractual employees do not hold rights equivalent to regular employees and dismissed her claim for reinstatement, but directed authorities to consider her written representation for unpaid honorarium and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to submit a representation for unpaid honorarium, to be considered by the competent authority.

Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1785/2018

¶3

Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Jat Vpi Kalru, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Collector, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kalru, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Smt. Leela Prajapat, Presently Working As Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Kalru, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Ranjeet Joshi For Respondent(s) : -

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

04/12/2018

¶15

CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.01/2018

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed.

¶17

Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1785/2018

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-1785/2018]

¶21

The appellant was appointed on contract basis as Gram Rozgar Sahayak for a period of one year from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009. The contract was extended by another year till 31.03.2010.

¶22

Unfortunate for her she became an accused in FIR No.145/2009, Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. A charge sheet was filed.

¶23

Taking cognizance of the appellant being an accused, her services were terminated. The appellant has not disclosed in her pleadings the date when her services were terminated.

¶24

Being acquitted on account of benefit of doubt being granted to her on 05.03.2013, she submitted a representation on 11.06.2013 praying that she should be reinstated in service. Her request was not accepted. The writ petition was filed by her pleading aforesaid facts and the additional fact that she was not paid the honorarium from 01.12.2008 to 23.08.2009.

¶25

None appeared for the appellant on 08.08.2014. Noting facts concerning appellant appointed on contract as Gram Rozgar Sahayak and the contract being terminated on she being an accused in a criminal case, the learned Single Judge has held that since appellant was not appointed substantively, being a contractual employee, no relief can be granted to her.

¶26

As regards she being provided appointment once again on contract basis we agree with this reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Needless to state rights of contractual employees are not

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[SAW-1785/2018]

¶29

at par with those of regularly appointed employees whose services are governed by statutory Rules.

¶30

As regards the plea of the appellant that she was not paid honorarium from 01.12.2008 to 23.08.2009, it appears that since no one appeared for the appellant before the learned Single Judge, said distinct aspect of her case was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

¶31

It would be useless to remand the matter before the learned Single Judge to reconsider this claim made by the appellant.

¶32

While dismissing the appeal, we direct that upon the appellant her making a representation to the competent authority stating that honorarium has not been paid for the period 01.12.2008 to 23.08.2009 in spite of she having rendered service, the representation shall be considered and appropriate orders passed. If it is found that the appellant had indeed worked for this period, honorarium shall be paid to her. If the view taken is that the appellant had not worked during this period, reasoned decision be communicated to her. We note that in the impugned order the learned Judge has noted that if fresh appointments are made on contract basis, the appellant’s application would be considered by the respondents.

¶33

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶34

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶35

Anil/

Sumitra Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Mal Vs State and Ors.

Santosh Joshi Vs Madhvi

Teejo Vs Union of India

Jaideep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

The Chairman Cum Man. Dir. Sfci and Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar Tomar and Anr.

Union of India Vs Surendra Lal Meena