Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Virendra Singh vs State (Medical And Helath ) Ors on 22 March, 2012

Author: Mohammad Rafiq

Bench: Mohammad Rafiq

    

 
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.685/2012
With
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.493/2012

Virendra Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

Date of Order ::: 22.03.2012

Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq


Shri Ram Pratap Saini, counsel for petitioner
####

By the Court:-

Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has not been granted benefit of annual increment by 10%, pursuant to Government Notifications dated 04.05.2011 and 30.11.2011. In other Districts the post of refrigerator mechanic was filled by the Government on individual contract basis, but, the petitioner is to work on that post through NGO. It is contended that this court in Mooli Devi Choudhary Vs. State {2010 (4) WLC (Raj.) 334}, has deprecated the practice of the Government in engaging the employees through NGO/Placement Agencies. The result of engagement through NGO/Replacement Agency is that the employees are exploited because such NGO/Placement Agency deducts its commission and reduces 10% amount from salary to be paid to the employee from what is paid by the Government for the working of such employees, what to say to give annual increment of 10%.

Having regard to the fact that in all other Districts, except three Districts, the employees in the same Scheme in the status of the petitioner, are being engaged directly on individual contract, this petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no.2, the Director, who shall take a decision within a period of three months as to why the petitioner should not be engaged directly and the NGO/Placement Agency through whom the employees are engaged, are eliminated.

In the light of the observations made by this court in Mooli Devi Choudhary Vs. State, supra, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be discontinued pending disposal of such representation, because he has approached this court.

This also disposes of the stay application.

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

//Jaiman//53 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW