Allowed

Fullabai v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2021CW/817/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order reinstating a resigned employee against a prior judicial decision that upheld her resignation. The High Court quashed the reinstatement order, dismissed the employee's reinstatement, directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner in accordance with the selection process, and fixed a timeline for completion.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.06.2019 and the joining of respondent No.7 are quashed; the petitioner is directed to be appointed according to the selection process.

Fullabai Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 817/2020

¶4

Fullabai W/o Sunil Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 13-Dol, Tehsil Rawla Mandi, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Mahila And Bal Vikas Department, Jaipur.

¶8

Deputy Director, Women And Child Development Department, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Women And Child Development Department, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, (Rajasthan).

¶10

Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 13-Dol, Tehsil Gharsana, District - Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶12

Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

Gurmeet Kaur D/o Shri Sugen Singh W/o Hansa Singh,, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village 13 Dol, Tehsil Gharsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶14

Gram Sevak And Ex-Officio Secretary, Gram Panchayat 13 Dol District - Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Trivedi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG. Mr. Inderjeet Yadav.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶18

Order

¶19

16/11/2021

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 18.06.2019 (Annex.10) and 21.06.2019

¶21

(2 of 6)

¶22

(Annex.11), whereby on a complaint made by the respondent No.7, on the directions of the concerned Minister, the Director has ordered that the respondent No.7 be maintained in service and pursuant thereto, the respondent No.7 has taken charge, respectively.

¶23

The respondent No.7, who was working as Aanganwadi Karyakarta at Aanganwadi Kendra, 13 DOL sought voluntary retirement / resigned from the post vide her communication dated 31.08.2018 (Annex.1). On account of the same, the process for selection of Aanganwadi Karyakarta was initiated, wherein on 25.01.2019 (Annex.2), a list was forwarded by the concerned Child Development Project Officer to the Gram Panchayat, wherein the petitioner was shown at merit No.1.

¶24

By order dated 26.01.2019, the name of the petitioner was approved by the Gram Sabha and she was approved for appointment by Annex.4. However, on an appeal filed by the respondent No.7 against acceptance of her application termed as 'voluntary retirement', the appeal was allowed.

¶25

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed second appeal.

¶26

By order dated 11.04.2019 (Annex.6), the second appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed.

¶27

Whereafter, it is noticed that the petitioner had filed writ petition being SBCWP No.5037/2019 challenging the initial order dated 22.02.2019 and the respondent No.7 filed SBCWP No.5652/2019 against the order dated 11.04.2019, whereby the second appeal was allowed.

¶28

The writ petition filed by the respondent No.7 came to be rejected by the Court on 23.04.2019 and consequently, the writ

¶29

(3 of 6)

¶30

petition filed by the petitioner was decided as having become infructuous by order dated 24.04.2019.

¶31

An order dated 08.05.2019 was passed by the Child Development Project Officer putting an end to the services of respondent No.7 pursuant to the order dated 11.04.2019. However, the respondent No.7 filed a complaint dated 26.04.2019 to the Minister and it appears that on his instructions, directions were given for reinstating the respondent No.7 by order dated 18.06.2019, and on 21.06.2019 the Child Development Project Officer indicated that the respondent No.7 has joined the duties (Annex.11).

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 18.06.2019 in teeth of the fact that order dated 11.04.2019 had already been upheld by this Court, cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 apparently suppressed the facts before the Minister, which led to passing of the order dated 18.06.2019 and on that count, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

¶33

Learned AAG appearing for the respondent-State made submissions that the order dated 11.04.2019 though was upheld by this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.7, the order was passed ex-parte and as such, the respondent - State was not in knowledge of the said order and that the said aspect was not disclosed by the respondent No.7 in her representation and therefore, the order was passed in ignorance of the said aspect.

¶34

Further submissions have been made that as this Court on 23.01.2020 has passed the order that the respondent No.7 shall

¶35

(4 of 6)

¶36

not be paid monthly emoluments from the date of passing of the order, the respondent No.7 is not working on account of passing of the interim order.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 made submissions that as the petitioner was aggrieved on account of her purportedly wrong acceptance of resignation, she made a representation to the Minister, which has been accepted, which does not call for any interference. However, it was fairly accepted by learned counsel that once the order dated 11.04.2019 came to be upheld by this Court while dismissing the writ petition, the order dated 18.06.2019 could not have been passed.

¶38

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶39

The facts are not in dispute wherein qua the action taken by the respondent on resignation / application for voluntary retirement filed by the respondent No.7, the services of the respondent No.7 came to an end, the respondent No.7 filed appeal, which came to be allowed by order dated 22.02.2019, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal, which appeal was allowed and the order dated 22.02.2019 was set-aside.

¶40

The order dated 11.04.2019 came to be upheld by this Court by a detailed speaking order, inter-alia, observing as under :-

¶41

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶42

A bare look at the order (Annex.-7) passed by the first appellate authority indicates that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for accepting the appeal, the first appellate authority was under obligation to record a finding on the ground as to whether the resignation was given by the petitioner under pressure or voluntarily, however, no such finding was recorded and the appeal was accepted without recording any reason whatsoever.

¶43

(5 of 6)

¶44

The second appellate authority after considering the entire material available on record came to the conclusion that the order accepting the resignation did not call for any interference specially in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who herself participated in the subsequent selection process and only filed appeal once it was apparent that she was not getting selected.

¶45

In view of the above categorical finding recorded by the second appellate authority, wherein learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to indicate any perversity, the same does not call for any interference.

¶46

There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed."

¶47

Once the petition filed against the order dated 11.04.2019 came to be rejected by this Court, there was no occasion for the respondent No.7 to then approach the Minister by way of a complaint without disclosing the fact that against the order dated 11.04.2019, the petition filed by her already stands dismissed.

¶48

Further once the remedy provided under the circulars regarding filing of the appeal had already been exhausted by the respondent No.7 and with the dismissal of the writ petition, apparently the Minister and/or Director also had no jurisdiction to then pass the order of impugned nature ordering for reinstatement of the respondent No.7. Be that as it may, the order dated 18.06.2019 cannot be sustained on any ground.

¶49

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 18.06.2019 (Annex.10) and consequential joining of respondent No.7 as reflected from the communication dated 21.06.2019 (Annex.11) are quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with the selection of the petitioner carried out vide Annexures-2 to 4 and accord her appointment in accordance with law.

¶50

(6 of 6)

¶51

The exercise be completed most expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner with the respondents.

¶52

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶53

159-Rmathur/-

Fullabai v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fullabai 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

Khushala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Baldas Swami Vs State of Rajasthan

Gendalal Damor Vs State of Rajasthan

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Samay Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Santosh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan