Disposed¶27

Shankar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2025CW/8468/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pay scale/parity claim by Pump Attendant allegedly used as Driver; Forest Department, Ranthambore Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur; Tribunal Appeal No.1262/1996 disposed 29.04.1999; Labour Court award dated 11.02.1994; appointment as Pump Attendant in pay scale Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025 vide order dated 16.08.1999; relief refused for non-challenge of that order; direction to re-examine and consider appointment on post of Driver; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand; decided 19/02/2025; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the petitioner's matter and pass a fresh order; if they conclude that the petitioner's services are required on the post of Driver, to pass necessary orders in that regard. ¶27

Shankar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment in the pay scale applicable to the post of Pump Attendant/Driver from his initial date of appointment, on the ground that the respondents have been taking the work of a Driver from him since his appointment.

¶13

Court's answer

Since the petitioner did not assail the order dated 16.08.1999 appointing him on the post of Pump Attendant, neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, he is not entitled to any relief and the Court declined to pass any order in his favour.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In view of Annexures 6 to 22 indicating that on many occasions the work of Driver was taken from the petitioner, the respondents were directed to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order, and if they conclude that the petitioner's services are required on the post of Driver, to pass necessary orders accordingly.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8468/2004, decided 19/02/2025 (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) - The petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Pump Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025 vide order dated 16.08.1999 pursuant to the Tribunal's directions in Appeal No.1262/1996 (disposed of on 29.04.1999) and the Labour Court award dated 11.02.1994, sought directions for payment in the pay scale of Pump Attendant/Driver from his initial date of appointment, alleging that the respondents had been taking the work of a Driver from him. Held: the order dated 16.08.1999 was never assailed by the petitioner either before the Tribunal or before this Court, and therefore he was not entitled to any relief. However, since documents at Annexures 6 to 22 indicated that on many occasions the work of Driver had been taken from the petitioner, the respondents were directed to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order, and if they concluded that the petitioner's services were required on the post of Driver, to pass necessary orders accordingly. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8468/2004

¶3

Shankar Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, 1/244, Housing Board Colony, Sawai Madhopur District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Conservator Of Forests, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Conservator Of Forest And Dy. Director Core Area Tiger Project, National Park Ranthambore, Sawa, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

19/02/2025

¶13

By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents for making payment to the petitioner as per the pay scale applicable for the post of Pump Attendant/Driver from his initial date of appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the date of appointment of the petitioner, the work of a Driver is being taken from him but the salary of the said post is not being paid to him. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by way of filing an appeal bearing No.1262/1996 and the

¶14

(2 of 4) [CW-8468/2004]

¶15

same was disposed of on 29.04.1999 with directions to the respondents to make clarity about the nature of appointment of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order as well as the order passed by the Labour Court vide award dated 11.02.1994, the respondents have appointed the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025. Learned counsel submits that inspite of passing of the aforesaid orders, till date, the respondents are taking the service of a Driver from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that several office orders, in this regard, have been issued by the respondents vide Annexures 6 to 22. Learned counsel submits that, once respondents are taking the work of a Driver from the petitioner, they are supposed to give the pay scale of the said post. Hence, under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is warranted.

¶17

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no sanctioned post of Driver in their office and the petitioner never discharged the duties on the post of Pump Driver. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the award passed by the Labour Court, the matter of the petitioner was examined and appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant under the pay scale of Rs. 775-13-840-15-1005-20-1025 vide order dated 16.08.1999. Learned counsel submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of with directions to the

¶18

[CW-8468/2004]

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

respondents to examine the matter of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, in case, any grievance still survives. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the order dated 16.08.1999 was passed, which was neither assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal nor before this Court. Hence, under these circumstances, the interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶21

Lastly, he argued that the work of a Driver has been occasionally taken by the respondents but the same is not taken on regular basis, hence, under these circumstances also, the petitioner cannot claim himself as a Driver and claim the salary and pay scale of the said post. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that with regard to the similar grievance, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal by way of filing an appeal bearing No.1262/1996 and the same was disposed of on 29.04.1999, which clearly indicates that a direction was issued to the respondents to examine the matter of the petitioner and pass fresh order with regard to his appointment.

¶22

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matter was examined by the respondents and it was observed that there was no post of Pump Driver in the office, hence appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Pump Attendant vide order dated 16.08.1999. The petitioner has not assailed the aforesaid order neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, and in absence

¶23

[CW-8468/2004]

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

thereof, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to pass any order in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

However, looking to the fact that the respondents have issued certain documents marked as Annexure 6 to 22, which indicate that on many occasions, the work of the Driver has been taken from the petitioner by the respondents. If it is so, the respondents are further directed to re-examine the matter of the petitioner and pass fresh order and, in case, they come to the conclusion that services of the petitioner are required on the post of Driver, they would pass necessary orders in this regard.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. All applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

Karan/26

Shankar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Manager Vs Shri Gopal Lal S/O Shri Dhanpal

Dr. Rajendra Singh Gurjar Son of Shri Kashiram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Nitika Choudhary D/O Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State Education Departmentors

Devendra Sikhwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Charan Vs State Home Departmentors