Disposed

Ranjeet Son of Shri Gordhan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023CW/2300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking appointment as 'Sweeper' at Nagar Nigam, Kota, the court disposed of the matter relying on a Division Bench judgment (Anita) that quashed rules disqualifying employees for having more than two children. The court directed respondents to act in accordance with that prior order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in light of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Anita and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ No. 16572/2018).

Ranjeet Son of Shri Gordhan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2300/2021

¶3

Ranjeet Son Of Shri Gordhan, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Nawal Park, Harijan Basti, Nayapura, Kota

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Directorate Local Bodies, Near Civil Lines, Jaipur

¶7

Nagar Nigam, Kota Through Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Kota

¶8

Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Kota

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manju Garg for Mr. DN Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashodhar Pandey for Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG (Sr. Adv.)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

04/09/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶15

following prayer:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, humble prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and may be further be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and by way of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature therefore:-

¶17

I. Respondents be directed /ordered to allow the petitioner to work on the post of "Sweeper" against vacancies and allow him to provide his service in Nagar Nigam Kota and provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶18

II. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

[CW-2300/2021]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

III. The cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶22

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 was 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.

¶23

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 nine 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.

¶24

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 03.10.2013 and he was allowed to work for some time. This fact is also not in dispute that some enquiry was initiated against the

¶25

[CW-2300/2021]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

petitioner that he concealed the information with regard to having more than two issues on the cut-off date i.e. 01.06.2002. This fact is also not in dispute that till date the said enquiry has not been concluded 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) by observing thus :-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(b) violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India for its retrospectivity; (58) As a consequence of the declaration aforesaid;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(59) While parting with the judgment, we wish to clarify that the present judgment shall not

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CW-2300/2021]

¶37

come in the way of the State, in case it decides to bring in appropriate Legislation, prescribing ineligibility based on the number of children, in accordance with law; subject of course to what has been held herein.

¶38

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

¶39

Since the controversy involved in this petition has already 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) .

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶43

KuD/166

Ranjeet Son of Shri Gordhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Son of Shri Gordhan 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

Sube Singh Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Naveen Senior Secondary School Sihari Khurd Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education

Pavan Kumar Meena S/O Rodu Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Home)

Management Committee, Jain Kanya Shiksha Pracharaniya Samiti Vs the Director/Commissioner, Secondary Education

Shankar Lal Payak S/O Foj Mal Payak Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hari Shankar Saini @ Hari Kumar Saini S/O Sh. Laxmi Narain Saini Vs State of Rajasthan