Disposed

Smt Sunita Sharma v. State Andors

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2024CW/155/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dealt with a writ petition seeking regularization benefits and salary arrears. The court found arguments unclear and facts needing clarification, so it disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation for sympathetic adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1 or the competent authority for sympathetic adjudication.

Smt Sunita Sharma Vs State Andors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:48748]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 155/2001

¶4

Smt Sunita Sharma daughter of Shyam Lal Sharma, aged about 30 years, resident of Chogan ki Athi Masalpur Gate, Karauli.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Medical and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Additional Director (Training), Directorate of Medical and Health Department, Jaipur.

¶9

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Karauli.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Y. C. Sharma with Mr. Vishesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶13

27/11/2024

¶14

Present petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶15

“(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to make payment of her entire salary w.e.f. 11.07.2000 in the regular pay scale and the arrears of the salary may be paid alongwith interest @ Rs. 24% P.A.

¶16

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly; (iii) any other appropriate order which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had completed her training under Chief Medical and Health Officer.

¶18

On 07.07.2000, the petitioners’ initial appointment and posting were made on a fixed salary basis, resultantly the petitioner consistently worked with the respondents.

[2024:RJ-JP:48748]

[CW-155/2001]

(2 of 3)

It is further submitted in bunch of petitions titled as Muneshi Bai Meena & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. registered as SBCWP No. 4420/2014, wherein the petitioner appeared as one of the party and vide order dated 28.04.2014, the same was disposed with a direction for consideration of the representation of the petitioner and adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order. Howsoever, despite the categorical directions, vide order dated 23.09.2014, the representation of the petitioners was not considered in a satisfactory manner and a non-speaking order was passed.

¶23

Furthermore, it is submitted that certain petitioners on account of akin facts and circumstances has filed a petition before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court titled as Smt. Nisha Mathur & Ors. Vs. State of Raj & Ors. registered in SBCWP No. 2329/2014 wherein, vide order dated 28.07.2014, categorical directions were passed to consider the matter of the similar situated persons as that of petitioner sympathetically. In light of the same, it is submitted that similarly situated persons in Jodhpur and Jaipur, as that of Muneshi Bai Meena & Ors. (Supra) were regularized.

¶24

Moreover, reliance is placed upon the dictum encapsulated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. registered as SLP (c) Nos. 22241-42/2016, wherein under the similar factual matrix regularization was done qua the similarly situated persons.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on distinct factual matrix as that of instant matter. It

[2024:RJ-JP:48748]

[CW-155/2001]

(3 of 3)

is further submitted that specific cases of similar situated persons as that of petitioner are not duly highlighted therefore, at this juncture, the counsel is unable to comment on the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

Furthermore, while placing reliance upon the dictum encapsulated in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar Vs. State of Maharasthra reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 801, has submitted that prolonged contractual employment does not confer a vested right to regularization.

¶31

Heard and considered.

¶32

Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties; taking note of the facts and circumstances of the instant matter, this court is of the opinion that as specific arguments are not clearly articulated and the matter requires factual clarification, thus deems it apposite to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondent No. 1 or the competent authority, and the same be adjudicated sympathetically, in accordance with law, ensuring that no discrimination is caused to the petitioner.

¶33

This Court makes it clear that observations of the Court will not cause any prejudice to either of the side.

¶34

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶35

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶36

Pooja/2

Smt Sunita Sharma v. State Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunita Sharma v. State Andors

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

Rajkumar S/O Shri Ghashi Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Bhedi, S/O Shri Ramphool Bhedi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Farid Mohammed S/O Sayar Kathat Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Lal Meghwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Kamla Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr Tulika Acharya D/O Shri Madhu Sudan Acharya Vs Agriculture University, Kota