Allowed

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2021CW/8231/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the order relieving petitioners from their duties and seeks payment of unpaid honorarium. The Court allowed the petition, directing respondents to pay dues for the period worked as PEEOs, deeming denial of payment to be akin to bonded labour.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay due honorarium from 01.04.2018 till 22.04.2019 within four weeks, with 6% interest p.a. thereafter for failure to comply.

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8231/2019

¶3

Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

¶4

Surendra Poonia S/o Shri Ramgopal Poonia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khatushyamji, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

District Collector, Sikar, (Raj.)

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar (Raj.)

¶10

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sikar (Raj.)

¶11

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶12

Principal, Govt. Adarsh Sr. Secondary School Khatushyamji, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶13

Gram Vikas Adhikari (Gram Sevak) Gram Panchayat Khatushyamji, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, GC Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

02/12/2021

(2 of 4)

[CW-8231/2019]

This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the respondent No.6 whereby, the petitioners have been relieved from their duties as Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (P.E.E.O.) with prayer that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to continue on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak or in the alternative, they may be transferred on any other vacant post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in Panchayat Samiti, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to pay them due honorarium from April, 2018 till date with interest.

¶22

However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his relief to the extent of payment of due honorarium from April, 2018 till 22.04.2019, the period they worked as P.E.E.O. with the respondent No.6.

¶23

The facts relevant for disposal of the controversy qua the relief prayed for by the petitioners, are that vide order dated 19.05.2017, the petitioners were appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayak for a period of one year on temporary basis on fix honorarium of ₹6,000/- per month. Vide order dated 19.07.2017, the petitioners were relieved to join their duties as P.E.E.O., Khatushyamji, Sikar. Thereafter, they were continuously working as P.E.E.O., Khatushyamji, Sikar till they were relieved vide order dated 22.04.2019.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that from the material on record including the order impugned dated 22.04.2019, it is apparent that they have worked from April, 2018 till 22.04.2019 as P.E.E.O. but, they have not been paid honorarium for the aforesaid period.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CW-8231/2019]

¶27

He prays that the respondents be directed to pay them their due honorarium.

¶28

Though, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that in absence of extension of their contractual period after its expiry in April, 2018, the petitioners are not entitled for any honorarium but, they could not dispute that the petitioners have discharged the worked of P.E.E.O. from 01.04.2018 till 22.04.2019 whey they were relieved vide order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the respondent No.6.

¶29

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

The undisputed position which emerges is that the petitioners have worked from 01.04.2018 till 22.04.2019 as P.E.E.O., Khatushyamji, Panchayat Samiti, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar and they have not been paid honorarium for the aforesaid period. Whether their contractual period was extended after its expiry by the competent authority or not, loses significance in view of the fact that before issuing relieving order dated 22.04.2019, the petitioners were never asked by the respondents to stop coming on duty. In view thereof, it does not lie in the mouth of a welfare state to deny the petitioners their due honorarium for the period they have discharged their duties , lest, it would amount to bonded labour. In these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are entitled for payment of unpaid honorarium for the period they worked with the respondents.

¶31

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of due honorarium to the petitioners for the period form 01.04.2018 till 22.04.2019 within a period of four

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-8231/2019]

¶34

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that failing compliance within the stipulated period, the due amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till payment.

¶35

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶36

Manish/104

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar S/O Mewaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sakila Bano Wife of Ex.Lnk Manzoor Ahmed Vs the Union of India

Mukul S/O Shri Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Kishori Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deen Dayal Khinchi S/O Shri Onkar Mal Vs State of Rajasthan