Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deepika Nawar vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep ) Ors on 20 February, 2013
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18417/2011 Deepika Nawar Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 20/02/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. Ashok Bansal, for petitioner Dr. Ganesh Parihar, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents
*** The petitioner was initially engaged as Programme Officer. She was dis-continued thus litigation came before this court. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 31.01.2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10616/2009, Kamlesh Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., wherein following directions were given, which are quoted hereunder:
I dispose of all these writ petitions requiring the State Government to take a fresh decision as to continuity of the petitioners by re-designating them as Additional or Assistant Programme Officer keeping in view the fact that they were eligible for being appointed even on the higher post of Programme Officer when they were initially appointed against contractual post pursuant to the advertisement dated 4/6/2008 or otherwise. Such decision shall be taken by the government within a period of eight weeks starting from today. Services of the petitioners may be continued for this duration of eight weeks.
Perusal of order reveals a direction to the State Government to take a fresh decision for continuity of petitioners by designating them as Assistant or Additional Programme Officer. It was in view of abolition of post of Programme Officer. The petitioner was thereafter taken as Assistant Programme Officer vide order dated 29.04.2011. The petitioner joined the post and was working sincerely. The petitioner's services were thereafter dispensed on the allegation of absence for the period prior to appointment on the post of Assistant Programme Officer.
It is submitted that absence was hardly of a period of 21 days at one occasion, 50 days on another occasion. It was due to sickness of the petitioner for which medical certificates were produced. In any case, period of absence was prior to the fresh appointment pursuant to the direction of this court thus should not have been effected fresh appointment. Accordingly, impugned order may be set aside with the direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue.
Learned counsel for respondents opposing the petition, submits that on two occasions, petitioner remained absent thus after giving opportunity of hearing, she was discontinued. As regards litigation on abolition of post of Programme Officer and direction therein has no relevance to the conduct of the petitioner for remaining absent while holding the post of Programme Officer.
I have considered the submissions made and find that service of petitioner has been dispensed with due to absence from duties while petitioner was working as Programme Officer. On abolition of post of Programme Officer, her services were discontinued. It is with interference of the court that petitioner was taken on the post of Assistant Programme Officer vide order dated 29.04.2011 and was again called for fresh agreement vide order order dated 23.05.2011.
In view of the above, petitioner's absence for same time while holding the post of Programme Officer cannot have effect on the fresh agreement pursuant to direction of this Court. The petitioner has explained and justified absence due to illness and otherwise absence is not of a long period. Looking to the aforesaid, action of the respondents becomes harsh. Looking to the above and fact that petitioner having appointed pursuant to direction of this court on the post of Assistant Programme Officer, order for discontinuance could not have been passed for the period when petitioner was holding the post of Programme Officer. The discontinuance would otherwise nullify the judgment of this court. In the light of the aforesaid, impugned order of discontinuance of petitioner is set aside. She may be reinstated, however she will not be entitled to the wages for the period other than continuity.
With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/18417CWP2011.doc Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A