Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2018WMAP/224/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court recalled an earlier order disposing of a writ petition. The court held that the controversy should be adjudicated based on the precedent set in Gopal Kumawat, which declared fixed remuneration for Rajasthan probationers illegal and ordered full scale allowances.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 7th May, 2018 recalled; petioner to be governed by Gopal Kumawat judgment terms regarding pay and allowances.

Smt Shashibala Sharma W/O Shri Anil Sharma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 224/2018

¶3

Smt Shashibala Sharma W/o Shri Anil Sharma

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Gupta For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶10

Order

¶11

06/07/2018

¶12

Matter comes up on above noted miscellaneous application with a prayer for recall of the order dated 7^th May, 2018, disposing of the writ application instituted by the petitioner in the backdrop of adjudication in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant submits that it was on account of inadvertent statement that was made to the effect that the controversy stands resolved in view of the adjudication in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; whereas the controversy involved in the writ application instituted by the petitioner-applicant, in fact, is covered by the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Kumawat Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. : DBCWP No. 2693/2007 decided on 29^th July, 2015. Hence, the order dated 7^th May, 2018 needs to be recalled while disposing of the writ application.

¶14

[WMAP-224/2018]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

For the reasons stated in the memo of miscellaneous application and upon hearing counsel for the petitioner-applicant; order dated 7^th May, 2018, needs to be recalled.

¶17

Accordingly, the above noted miscellaneous application is hereby allowed.

¶18

As stated by the counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ application is disposed of in terms of order in the case of Gopal Kumawat (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, observed thus:

¶19

“32. In the present case, no material has been placed before us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply that the probationers, during the period of their probation, do not perform the same duties and responsibilities and are not required to carry out the same functions as confirmed employees.

¶20

We find the practice of payment of fixed remuneration without any allowances and benefit of increments to the probationers, who were appointed after adopting the regular selection process, on substantive posts, or even after following the selection process on ad hoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointed on substantive posts, to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious practice of forced labour.

¶21

We find no justification for the State Government, to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the Central Government, or in any other States in the country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice of forced labour for its employees, taking advantage of the attraction of the Government service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of the Constitution of India, and against the conscience of the Constitution of India.

¶22

The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby quashed. The State respondents are directed to pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the

¶23

[WMAP-224/2018]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the period of probation.

¶26

Now since by this judgment, we have declared the Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, to be unconstitutional and consequently quashed the same, we direct that the State Government shall, pay to all its employees, appointed on regular or ad hoc basis under the statutory Rules on substantive posts, except the employees appointed on contract, daily rated or work charged employees, regular pay in time scale along with all allowances including Special Pay, Dearness Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Non Practicing Allowance, Non-Clinical Allowance. Rural Allowance, Project Allowance, Mess Allowance, Washing Allowance or any other allowance, as are admissible to a confirmed employee in the same department. The payment of these allowances will not be dependent upon the period of probation, or successful completion of the period of probation. The probationer trainees will also be entitled to deductions towards General Provident Fund (GPF), State Insurance, and Travelling Allowance, as are admissible and payable to the regular employees. They shall also be entitled to annual grade increments for the period of probation, after confirmation and Casual Leave, as in the case of other regular employees.”

¶27

Accordingly, claim of the petitioner in writ application No. 9669/2018, shall be treated to be governed by the terms of order made in the case of Gopal Kumawat (Supra), extracted hereinabove.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶29

M.Meena/116

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawal Kishor Kumhar S/O Shree Laluram Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principle Secretary to the Government, Department of Home

Ramesh Chandra Labana S/O Shri Veerbhan Labana Vs the State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Medical and Family Welfare Department

Kalpana Sharma D/O Shri Jamuna Prashad Sharma, by Caste Brahmin Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary, Education Department

Ramraj Raigar Vs State Education Department Ors.

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

Yogesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services, Govt. Secretariat