Disposed

Chandan S/O Shri Hukum Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 May 2023CW/1207/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a petition seeking reinstatement for a sweeper terminated due to an unenforceable salary post eligibility rule. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment that struck down such discriminatory rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16, the court held the matter set at rest and directed reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed in light of the earlier judgment of this Court quashing the ineligibility clause; respondent directed to reinstate the petitioner with consequential benefits within two months.

Chandan S/O Shri Hukum Chand Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009302]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1207/2020

¶4

Chandan S/o Shri Hukum Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Harijan Basti, Kaithun Distt. Kota, (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Mandal, Kaithun, Distt. Kota, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

03/05/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶15

following prayer:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to call for the record, examine the same and allow this writ petition; and

¶17

(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of thereby quashed and set aside the oral termination of the petitioner from the service on the post of sweeper.

¶18

(ii) Further the respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequences benefits i.e. continuity of service, pay and allowances, fixation of salary, seniority of service and promotion etc.

¶19

(iii) Any other relief to the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

[2023/RJJP/009302]

[CW-1207/2020]

(2 of 4)

(iv) Cost the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari but he was not allowed to work on the ground that an enquiry is pending against him. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner was having more than two children and he concealed this fact at the time of his appointment. Counsel submits that the clause mentioned about ineligibility in the circular/notification has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Anita and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ No. 16572/2018 decided on 2^nd April, 2019. Counsel submits that instant petition may be disposed of in the light of the same directions.

¶25

Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the matter pertains to year 2012 while the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of eight years without giving any justified explanation in the petition. Counsel admits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Anita (supra) but he submits that this petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

¶26

Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected and given appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari on 01.10.2013 and he was allowed to work for some time. This fact is also not in dispute that some enquiry was initiated against the

[2023/RJJP/009302]

[CW-1207/2020]

(3 of 4)

petitioner that he concealed the information with regard to having more than two issues on the cut-off date i.e. 01.06.2012. This fact is also not in dispute that till date the said enquiry has not been concluded till and no final order has been passed by the respondents. This fact is also not in dispute that the ineligibility clause appended to the advertisement has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anita (supra)

¶31

by observing thus :-

¶32

“(56) In case such provisions, denying public employment are deemed necessary to sensitize the masses, then, the State should introduce such amendment in other Service Rules governing all municipal employees, which have been framed under Section 337 of the Act of 2009 or Section 88 of the earlier Act of 1959. Besides this, if the object of population control is to be achieved, it serves no cause by denying employment based on the birth of a child, which has taken place prior to such insertion. If a disqualification from a future date is prescribed, then perhaps a citizen would think twice before giving birth to third child and that probably would cater to the State’s policy of family welfare and family planning.

¶33

(57) As a result of the discussion aforesaid, we declare Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 to be :-

¶34

(a) violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for being discriminatory;

¶35

(b) violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India for its retrospectivity;

¶36

(58) As a consequence of the declaration aforesaid;

¶37

(i) impugned order dated 24.09.2018 cancelling the appointment of the petitioners is quashed and set aside;

¶38

(ii) the respondents are directed to take the petitioners back on their duties and/or give them posting;

¶39

(iii) the petitioners shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.

¶40

(59) While parting with the judgment, we wish to clarify that the present judgment shall not come in the way of the State, in case it decides to bring in appropriate Legislation, prescribing

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/009302]

[CW-1207/2020]

ineligibility based on the number of children, in accordance with law; subject of course to what has been held herein.

¶45

All the three writ petitions are allowed; however, without any order as to the costs.”

¶46

Since the controversy involved in this petition has already

¶47

been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anita (supra), instant petition stands disposed of in the light of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anita (supra) .

¶48

Needless to observe that the respondents would do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶50

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶51

MR/53

Chandan S/O Shri Hukum Chand v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan S/O Shri Hukum 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Ram Vs State and Ors.

Shiv Ram Meena Vs State and Ors.

Girdhari Lal Arora Vs State and Ors.

Shri Rajendra Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Lekhraj Saini Son of Shri Pyare Lal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Maheshwari Publice School Vs Ran Non Gov Education Tri Ors.