Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India & Ors. vs . Laxman Kumar Sain on 8 July, 2015
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1817/2015
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Laxman Kumar Sain
Date of Order: 08/07/2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA
Mr. Neeraj Batra Adv., for petitioners.
Mr. Amit Mathur Adv., for respondent.
Instant writ petition is directed against order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dt.06/03/2014.
At the out set, it may be noticed that 5 Original Applications came to be decided by a common judgment impugned herein dt.06/03/2014. However, before us writ petition has been preferred by Union of India arising from the Original Application No.440/2013.
The facts, which can be noticed from the record in reference to the present dispute, are that the respondent-employee was working as a casual labour and was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) vide order dt.05/04/2011 with a condition to qualify the Matriculation Examination within two years. However, the fact is that the respondent appeared in the examination after a period of two years and obviously result was also declared thereafter and since he failed to fulfill the condition stipulated in the order of appointment in acquiring the qualification of Matriculation Examination within two years of appointment, on the last day of completion of two years, his services were terminated vide order dt.05/04/2013.
One Sharwan Singh Chauhan, who was appointed along with the present respondent as MTS pursuant to order dt. 04/04/2011, he too failed to qualify the 10th Standard Examination within two years of appointment. However, representation was made by him indicating the justifiable reasons for which he failed to qualify the Secondary School Examination within two years and that was considered by the department and he was reinstated in service and taking note thereof in the Original Application filed by the respondent, the ld. Tribunal arrived to a conclusion that Shri Sharwan Singh Chauhan, who was reinstated by the department, is similarly situated like the present respondent Shri Laxman Kumar Sain applicant in Original Application No.440/2013 and as Sharwan Singh Chauhan has been reinstated, the present respondent is also entitled for the same relief and he too deserves to be reinstated in service.
Indisputably, the respondent/applicant was to qualify the required examination within two years and the fact is that Shri Sharwan Singh Chauhan and the present respondent Shri Laxman Kumar Sain both have acquired qualification of Secondary School Examination but after completion period of two years. Keeping in view, the action of the department in reinstating Shri Sharwan Singh Chauhan and Laxman Kumar Sain being similarly situated person, the ld. Tribunal directed to grant same benefits to the present respondent Laxman Kumar Sain as was granted to Sharwan Singh Chauhan by the department in revoking the order of termination & reinstating him in service under order impugned.
Counsel for petitioner has tried to make a distinction in the case of Sharwan Singh Chauhan and that of the present respondent. However, the fact which is not in dispute is that both have qualified the 10th Standard School Examination after a period of two years and taking note thereof the distinction pointed out may not be of any substance and create two different standards in evaluating the order of termination in the case of Sharwan Singh Chauhan and that of Laxman Kumar Sain, the present-respondent.
Since Sharwan Singh Chauhan has been reinstated in service and the ld. Tribunal elaborately considered case of the present respondent, taking note thereof, we are of the view that the termination of the present respondent pursuant to order dt.05/04/2013 is not sustainable and he deserves to be reinstated in compliance of order of the Tribunal impugned herein dt.06/03/2014. However, he will be entitled for actual benefit including salary from the date of his reinstatement in service.
The writ petition, preferred at the instance of Union of India, is disposed of and order of the Tribunal dt.06/03/2014 with the modification referred to supra is accordingly confirmed. The petitioners shall ensure compliance of the order within a period of three months.
(J.K. RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. S.Kumawat-77
Certificate- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed.
S.Kumawat Jr. P.