Dismissed

Rajesh Sharma S/O Amar Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2019SAW/1224/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge appeal against the rejection of a challenge to a state policy assigning additional charge for Panchayat Secretary posts to nearby staff was condensed. The court rejected the claim of legitimate expectation by same-panchayat staff and reduced costs from Rs 5,000 to Rs 1,000 per petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; costs reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000 per petitioner.

Rajesh Sharma S/O Amar Chand Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1224/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24621/2019

¶5

Rajesh Sharma S/o Amar Chand, R/o Fatehpur Kalan, Post Mudoti, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶6

Radhey Shyam S/o Amar Singh, R/o Gram Gangwak, Tehsil Nagar, Dsitt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶7

Shyam Lal S/o Santu Lal, R/o Village Raipur Khurd, Post Bhatpura, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶8

Rajaram S/o Jagdish, R/o Village Pendaka, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶9

Rajesh Kumar S/o Devi Ram, R/o Village Mundiya, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶10

Samay Singh S/o Son Pal, R/o Semli, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶11

Rajesh Kumar S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Akbarpur, Mundiya, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

Secretary (Administration) Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

Asha Ram Meena S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Sabiyapura, Post Inayati, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli (Raj.)-322218.

¶17

Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Ram Khiladi Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Jeerota, Post Jeerota, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli (Raj.)-322203.

¶18

Hemraj Singh S/o Hargyan Gurjar, Village And Post Kapuramalooka, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶19

Saudan Singh S/o Shyama Jatav, Gram Nagla Kulvariya,

¶20

(2 of 6)

¶21

[SAW-1224/2019]

¶22

Post Saadpura,tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur

¶23

Rashal Singh Gurjar S/o Lakhan Singh, Village And Post Adada, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur

¶24

Mohan Singh Gurjar S/o Manohari Gurjar, Village Madanpur, Post Seeloti, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

¶25

Bal Kishan S/o Bhagvan Singh Meena, Gram Peepri, Post Milakpur, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶26

Rajveer Singh S/o Uday Bhan Singh, Gram And Post Soopa, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur

¶27

Brij Lal Mahawar S/o Chet Ram Mahawar, Gram And Post Baglai, Tehsil Bajirpur (Gangapur) District Sawai Madhopur

¶28

Banay Singh S/o Valli Ram, Village Pidawali, Post Khohra, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur

¶29

Surendra Singh Yadav S/o Sukhlal Yadav, Village Kansli, Tehsil, District Jaipur

¶30

Pyare Lal S/o Leela Ram, Gram Chimanpura, District Jaipur

¶31

Harfool Singh Raigar S/o Mangal Ram Raigar, Village Jahidpura Nangal Panditpur District Jaipur

¶32

Gangaram Gurjar S/o Boduram Gurjar, Village Ramsinghpura District Jaipur.

¶33

Rajkumar Hotla S/o Rohitashv Kumar Hotla, Village Sangteda, District Jaipur.

¶34

Suresh Kumar Harijan S/o Roshan Lal Harijan, Village Kalyanpura Kalan, District Jaipur.

¶35

Sandeep Kumar Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav, Village Ramsinghpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Sikar

¶36

Ashok Kumar Aarya S/o Jamman Lal Aarya, Village Gopipura Chaturbhuj, District.jaipur

¶37

Ravindrajeet S/o Shyonarayan, Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶38

Kamlesh Yadav S/o Totaram Yadav, Village Ramgarh Chhadra, District Jaipur

¶39

Dilip Singh Meena S/o Indrajeet Singh Meena, Village And Post Kirwada, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli

¶40

Rajesh Kumar Harsana S/o Kailashi Ram Gurjar, Village Post Bisura, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli

¶41

(3 of 6)

¶42

[SAW-1224/2019]

¶43

Aasha Jangid W/o Yogesh Jangid, Plot No 28, Bal Vihar Colony, Goner Road, Jaipur

¶44

Haricharan Lal Meena S/o Bholya Ram Meena, Village Khirkhidi,post Manderu,tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli

¶45

Mahesh Kumar Bairva S/o Narayan Bairva, Gram Bhandpura, Post Garhhimmat Singh Tehsil Mahva, District Dausa

¶46

Jai Krishn Sharma S/o Laxminarayan Sharma, Village Post Patoli, Tehsil Mahva, District Dausa

¶47

Sarbat Singh Gurjar S/o Tikam Singh Gurjar, Gram Post Tighriya, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli

¶48

Roop Singh Saini S/o Kishori Lal Saini, Village Post Tata Kuva, Todabhim, District Karauli

¶49

Rajkumar Meena S/o Badri Prasad Meena, Gram Khidkhidi, Post Manderu,tehsil Todabhim, District Jaipur

¶50

Chatar Singh S/o Eshwar Das, R/o Village And Post Jhanjhar, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶51

Rakesh Chand Gupta S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Gram Udaipur, Niham, Post Budli, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶52

Atar Singh S/o Bhoorya Lal, R/o Village Khesti, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶53

Shivcharan S/o Harsahay, R/o Bajri Khedi, Jhanjhar, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶54

----Respondents

¶55

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y. S. Jadoun For Respondent(s) :

¶56

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶57

Order

¶58

09/09/2019

¶59

There is delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. Application No.879/2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

¶60

(4 of 6)

¶61

[SAW-1224/2019]

¶62

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Delay of 4 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶63

The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their writ petition. They had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of State Government, which provided that in the event of vacancy of Village Level Worker-cum Panchayat Secretary (VLW-cum-PS) in Gram Panchayats for any reason, additional charge would be given to another Village Level Worker-cum-Panchayat Secretary in the Gram Panchayat of nearby vicinity and not to employee or other staff member including Clerk Grade-II in the same Gram Panchayat.

¶64

This litigation was preceded by series of writ petitions, which had challenged the earlier policy decision of the State Government with regard to filling up the post of Village Level Worker-cumPanchayat Secretary on temporary basis. During the pendency of such writ petitions, the State Government took a decision to withdraw that order. In the interregnum, petitioners and others holding the post of Clerk Grade-II in the same Gram Panchayat had been given additional charge as Village Level Worker-cumPanchayat Secretary. After the withdrawal of earlier Government order, the State came out with the impugned new policy.

¶65

The writ petitioners/appellants are aggrieved by the new policy. They contended that experience gained by them was invaluable and that the additional charge ought not to be given in respect of vacancy in Village Level Worker-cum-Panchayat Secretary cadre and rather, it ought to be filled from amongst people in the same Gram Panchayat, evading regular recruitment.

¶66

(5 of 6)

¶67

[SAW-1224/2019]

¶68

This argument did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who rejected the writ petition and imposed a cost of 5,000/- to₹ be paid by each of the petitioners to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur and RSLSA, Jaipur.

¶69

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge fell into error in passing the impugned order. It is urged that the previous arrangement whereby staff and employees in the same Panchayat continued on additional charge basis was salutary and conducive to public interest. It is also urged that the learned Single Judge completely failed to take into account of legitimate expectation of the appellants that they or others like them working in the same Panchayat and having knowledge of working and duties of Village Level Worker-cumPanchayat Secretary, ought to be allowed to officiate.

¶70

This Court noticed at the outset that the cadre of Village Level Worker-cum-Panchayat Secretary cannot be filled by Clerk Grade-II. It is not even a promotional post in regular line of promotion for their cadre. In these circumstances, there could not have been any expectation, much less legitimate expectation, that they would ever get to discharge the duties of Village Level Worker-cum Panchayat Secretary. What was done in the past was purely fortuitous and on account of administrative exigency under the internal arrangement, as a matter of discretion and based upon the convenience of the administration.

¶71

Having regard to the overall circumstances and the nature of position, which State found itself hammed by the previous litigation, on this aspect, it has chosen now to ensure that the vacancy in the post of Village Level Worker-cum-Panchayat

¶72

(6 of 6)

¶73

[SAW-1224/2019]

¶74

Secretary, are manned by others, who are given charge of Village Level Worker-cum-Panchayat Secretary on additional basis, who are holding regular appointment on the same posts in nearby Panchayats.

¶75

The Court is further of the opinion that the learned Single Judge’s direction to impose costs cannot be construed as unreasonable. Having regard to the overall circumstances, yet in the peculiar circumstance, the amount of costs is hereby, reduced; instead of ₹ 5,000/- each petitioners shall pay 1,000/- to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur as also to RSLSA, Jaipur.

¶76

In view of above, the appeal is disposed of with above modification.

¶77

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶78

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶79

RS/103

Rajesh Sharma S/O Amar Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sharma S/O Amar Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

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

S.S. Mina S/O Shri Indra Singh Mina Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogendra Nath S/O Shri Kamla, Aged About 65 Years Vs Shri Rajeev Gauba

Nirmala Kanwar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Raj Singh S/O Shri Raj Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar S/O Suresh Kumar Vs District Collector

Net Ram Yadav S/O Shri Gheesa Ram Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan