Partly allowed

State of Raj and Ors. v. Ramveer Singh

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2019SAW/1499/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly. While setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement of the Agriculture Supervisor who furnished false renewal details, the Court denied full salary and benefits for the non-working period, granting only notional benefits based on continuity of service.

What did the court decide?

Termination order set aside and respondent reinstated, but full salary and benefits for the intervening period denied; only notional benefits based on continuity granted.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Ramveer Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1499/2011

¶3

State pf Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶4

The Director, Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶5

The Assistant Collector, Agriculture (Extension), Sub-District Salumbar, District Udaipur

¶6

----Appellants/respondents

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ramveer Singh son of Shri Shiv Lal, by caste Jatav, Resident of Village Khansurajpur, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur

¶9

----Non-appellant/petitioner

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal for Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

01/02/2019

¶14

(Per: Hon’ble Bardhar, J)

¶15

Challenge in the instant appeal has been made to the order dated 23^rd October 2008 passed by learned Single Judge.

¶16

Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the Directorate of Agriculture issued an advertisement inviting application for the post of Agriculture Supervisor in Rajasthan Patrika dated 14.7.1993. The respondent-workman applied for the said post. The respondent-workman was given appointment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor in the pay scale of 950-20-1200 vide order dated 15/09/1993. The respondent-workman was directed to be present in the Office of Joint Director, Agriculture

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[SAW-1499/2011]

¶19

Extension, Udaipur. Vide order dated 30.9.1993 he was posted at Agriculture Supervision Centre, Khokri, in Sub-District Salumber (Udaipur). In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondentworkman joined the service and since then he had been working as an Agriculture Supervisor at Khokri in District Udaipur. Vide communications dated 13.04.1994 and 22.04.1994 the respondent workman was directed to give explanation in respect of the renewal of the registration with the Employment Exchange, Bharatpur. The respondent-workman submitted his explanation on 26.4.1994 stating that his registration with the Employment Exchange Office was renewed upto 24.7.1990. Thereafter, he got his registration renewed on 24.7.1990 upto 2.7.1993. Again the respondent-workman went to the Employment Exchange, Bharatpur on 12.7.1993 for the purpose of renewal. The office of Employment Exchange renewed the registration of the respondent-workman upto 12.7.1996 on the registration card. Vide communication dated 30.5.1994 the services of the respondent workman were terminated under Section 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Aggrieved with the termination order 30.05.1994 the respondent workman preferred writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 23^rd October 2008.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appointment of the respondent workman was given on the post of Agriculture Supervisor on the basis of information supplied by him but after investigation, it was found that the information furnished by the respondent workman with regard to his registration with the Employment Exchange Office on 30.09.1993 was found to be false. The respondent workman succeeded to get appointment on the basis of false information. Ample opportunity was given to the

¶21

(3 of 6)

¶22

[SAW-1499/2011]

¶23

respondent workman to produce the requisite certificate before the Authority but he never produced the requisite document. Therefore, the condition No.3 of the advertisement / notification dated 14.07.1993 as well as the condition No. 4 of the appointment letter dated 15.09.1993 were not at all fulfilled by the respondent workman. The false information furnished by the respondent workman came to the knowledge of the appellants after inspection from the record of the Employment Exchange. The notification as well as the appointment order clearly indicate that false/ wrong information or suppression of the material information would lead to cancellation of the candidature/ appointment of a candidate. The period during which the respondent workman was not on job for last more than 12 years, for that also the learned Single Judge gave a direction that the respondent workman is entitled for his salary for the period since the date of initial joining the service upto his reinstatement. The aforesaid directions given by the learned Single Judge are contrary to law.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the appeal, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and argued that the date for consideration in respect of the registration with the Employment Exchange as notified in the advertisement was 30.06.1993 and undisputably on that date the respondent workman was duly registered with the Employment Exchange. Learned counsel further argued that the criminal case initiated by the appellants department in respect of the renewal was concluded in favour of the respondent workman as the prosecution failed to prove its case.

¶25

(4 of 6)

¶26

[SAW-1499/2011]

¶27

The letter dated 07.01.1994 received from Regional Office, Bharatpur, clearly shows that the registration certificate was not valid and proper. The Department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept the respondent-workman out of service. Therefore, the order of terminating the service of the respondentworkman dated 30.05.1994 was passed.

¶28

As per appointment condition, the applicant should be registered with any of the Employment Exchange of the State upto 30.06.1993 and regarding correctness of the registration of the respondent-workman with the Employment Exchange upto 30.06.1993. As per the record, the registration was done on 24.08.1987, which was valid on the material date i.e. on 30.06.1993. On the issue as to whether the respondent-workman was duly registered with the Employment Exchange is on 30.06.1993 or not, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion as under:

¶29

“In the instant case, as far as the registration of the petitioner with the Employment Exchange upto 30.06.1993 is concerned, there is no dispute about it. It is not the case of the respondents also that as on that date i.e. 30.06.1993, the petitioner was not duly registered with the Employment Exchange. As a matter of fact, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the renewal of the registration of the petitioner after 02.07.1993 had not been found correct. The respondents are said to have been informed by the District Employment Exchange Office, Bharatpur on 07.01.1994 that the registration of

¶30

(5 of 6)

¶31

[SAW-1499/2011]

¶32

the petitioner had been cancelled for want of renewal after 2^nd July. The renewal on the registration card on 02.07.1993 and 12.07.1996 was not found to be correct, as per the record. The fact remains that so far as the registration of the petitioner with the Employment Exchange on 30.06.1993 is concerned, it was valid. The petitioner got his registration done with the Employment Exchange since 24.08.1987. Furthermore, the explanation given by the petitioner in his reply dated 26.04.1994 also appears to be plausible. The registration card of the petitioner did not have the endorsement of renewal after 02.07.1993. The petitioner has also given details, including the name of the clerk who had made such endorsement on the registration card. The renewal is considered to be incorrect on the ground that there was no corresponding entry in the record of the Employment Exchange office. It is no one’s case that the petitioner was involved in making the endorsement of renewal by tempering or committing forgery.”

¶33

We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the termination of the respondent-workman and directing his reinstatement. However, considering that the respondent-workman actually did not work from the date of termination order dated 30.05.1994, the direction to pay all the entire consequential benefits for the intervening period from the date of termination till reinstatement is set aside. He shall however be entitled to benefit of continuity and on that basis, notional benefits for the intervening period.

¶34

(6 of 6)

¶35

[SAW-1499/2011]

¶36

Impugned judgment is accordingly modified. Appeal is thus allowed in part.

¶37

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶38

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶39

Sharma NK/46

State of Raj and Ors. v. Ramveer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj and Ors. v. Ramveer Singh

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

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Madan Lal Son of Narayan Singh

Lakhpat Meena S/O Shri Hasti Mal Meena Vs Registrar, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Mukesh Kumar S/O Kalyan Singh

State of Rajasthan Vs Jamal Mohammad

Ms Aksh Optifibre Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Exciseandser Tax

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Anita D/O Shri Pawan Kumar W/O Shri Gaurav Yadav