Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahesh Kumar Sharma And Ors vs Advocate General Gov Of Raj Ors on 21 December, 2011
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8976/2011 Mahesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. The Advocate General, Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 21st December, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Banwari Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG. By the court:
In this writ petition, grievance of petitioners is two folds. One is in regard to change in the system for engagement of staff in government advocates' offices and second is in regard to the remuneration paid to them.
It is stated that all the petitioners were working in the government advocates' offices before change in policy. Now as per the new policy, every government advocate has been given liberty to engage their own staffs like Stenographers, LDCs and Peons and remuneration for them has already been fixed, which is now to be paid by the respective government advocates. It is submitted that aforesaid arrangements are nothing but for replacing one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees. Thus, while setting aside the order providing new arrangement for engagement of LDCs and Peons in government advocates' offices, the respondents be directed to continue all the petitioners with the adequate remuneration for services rendered by them.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.S.N.Kumawat, on the other hand submits that all the petitioners are working with the government advocates with the change of system. Earlier, files pertaining to the cases were kept by the government advocates' offices, however, now it is to be kept with the government advocate concerned. Accordingly, the petitioners services were not required in the government advocates' offices but is used by the respective government advocate. The remuneration as fixed is being given to all the concerned by cheque. In the aforesaid circumstances, challenge to the new scheme is without any basis, rather keeping in mind the nature of the appointment of the petitioners, even they have no right to continue in service. In any case, the respondents are not replacing one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees, rather no material has been placed on record to show the aforesaid. The writ petition may accordingly be dismissed though, it may not be considered to show intention of the Government to discontinue the services of the petitioners or to deny monthly payment to them by government advocates by cheque. In fact, till their services are required and nothing adverse is found against them, they would not be replaced by another set of contractual employees. However, their replacement be made by regularly selected candidates, if are made available.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition and find that none of the petitioners has been discontinued from service even with the change in the system in the Government Advocates' offices. The change in the system has been made to make working more effective in the government advocates' office. In the present system, the files are kept by the government advocates in their offices and thereby, assistance of LDCs and Peons is given to them with the arrangement for their payment, thus, there is no illegality in the change in system. The petitioner would be continued under the new system. However, if working of any of the petitioners is not found to be satisfactory, the respondents would be at liberty to discontinue their services after following the principles of natural justice.
So far as the issue of monthly payment is concerned, it is agreed to be paid by cheque, accordingly each petitioner will receive due remuneration on monthly basis through cheque.
Another issue is in regard to inadequacy of remuneration given to the petitioners. It is stated by learned Additional Advocate General that matter has already been referred to the Government for increase of remuneration of the petitioners and the same is under consideration with the Law Department.
Since the matter has already been recommended for increase of remuneration, the Law Department is expected to take necessary decision in this regard at the earliest, which may not be more than two months. It is also expected that proper remuneration would be given to petitioners befitting the services they rendered.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition so as the stay application stand disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.417 preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.