Disposed

Ramzan Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2022CW/5121/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition challenging the calculation of experience period and bonus marks eligibility. The court directed disposal in terms of a previous common order, directing the respondent to consider petitioner representations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in terms of common order Jagdish Prasad Nai; stay application disposed; Director to consider representation on experience calculation within 15 days.

Ramzan Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5121/2022

¶3

Ramzan Ali S/o Fakhruddin Shekh, aged about 35 Years, r/o Ajmeri Gate Karpura, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶7

The Director, Department of Medical and Health Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶8

Addl. Director (Admn.), Department of Medical and Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶9

Joint Director, Department of Medical and Health Services, Zone Ajmer (Raj.)

¶10

The Principal Medical Officer, Nagaur, (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	O.P. Sangwa
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	K.S. Rajpurohit,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

25/08/2022

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents submits that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Jagdish Prasad Nai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1507/2022) decided on 26.05.2022.

¶17

In Jagdish Prasad Nai’s case (supra), it was observed as

¶18

under :

¶19

“This petition along with a bunch of 12 writ petitions, enlisted in the appended Schedule

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-5121/2022]

¶22

give rise to same issue, which shall be treated to be part and parcel of the order instant, are decided by a common order.

¶23

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the action of the respondents in counting the period of experience of the petitioners, which has resulted in either their becoming disqualified for applying to the post of Laboratory Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.5.2018 and/or to get less bonus marks than what they are actually entitled to.

¶24

Submissions have been made that though the petitioners have worked for the entire month, as the emoluments paid to the petitioners have been calculated based on 26 days emoluments, the respondents while calculating the period of experience, have not treated them to have worked for the entire month, which action of the respondents is contrary to the factual position as well as the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, wherein, the minimum wages are required to be calculated in terms of the notifications issued, which provide that the daily wages are required to be calculated by dividing the monthly wages by 26 days and that in the rates fixed, weekly holidays are included in salary, therefore, the respondents could not have deducted the period based on the fact of payment of wages for particular number of days.

¶25

Further reliance has been placed on judgment in Mahipal Lakhera v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2577/2020, decided on 11.1.2021.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that wherever the petitioners have objections pertaining to the calculation made by the respondents pertaining to their period of experience, they may make representations to the respondents and the same shall be appropriately decided by the respondents.

¶27

In view of the above submissions made, the petitioners may make representation to the Director (Non-Gazetted) with regard to the calculation of their experience and consequential

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-5121/2022]

¶30

fact about their eligibility / award of bonus marks within a period of 15 days from today.

¶31

The Director (Non-Gazetted) would pass appropriate orders on the representations to be made by the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

The petitioners would be free to take appropriate proceedings, in case, they have any grievance qua the decision taken by the authority in this regard.

¶33

The respondents shall not conclude the recruitment before passing of the final orders as indicated hereinbefore.

¶34

It is expected of the respondents to conclude the entire exercise by 31st of July, 2022.”

¶35

Therefore, the present petition is disposed of in the same

¶36

terms and conditions as in Jagdish Prasad Nai’s case (supra).

¶37

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶38

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶39

28-AnilKC/-

Ramzan Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramzan Ali 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kiranveer Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Jhingonia Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajanan Dayam Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Prakash Buccha Vs Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar

Mukesh Kumar Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan