Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Kamlesh Kumari vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3095 / 2017
Smt Kamlesh Kumari W/o Shri Rambabu Sharma, by Cast
Brahamin, Aged About 34 Years, Village & Post Masari, Tehsil
Kathumar, District - Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Home
Government of Rajasthan, Secrecreate Jaipur Raj
2. The Director General of Police Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter,
Lal Kothi Jaipur Rajasthan
3. The Commissioner of Police Jaipur, Commissionerate Jaipur
Rajasthan
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Jaipur
Commissionerate Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 01/03/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised, in the instant writ application, stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007, decided on 29th July, 2015 (Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), holding thus:
"32. In the present case, no material has been placed before us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply that the probationers, during the period of their probation, do not perform the same duties and responsibilities and are not required to carry out the (2 of 4) [CW-3095/2017] same functions as confirmed employees.
33. We find the practice of payment of fixed remuneration without any allowances and benefit of increments to the probationers, who were appointed after adopting the regular selection process, on substantive posts, or even after following the selection process on ad hoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointed on substantive posts, to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious practice of forced labour.
34. We find no justification for the State Government, to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the Central Government, or in any other States in the country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice of forced labour for its employees, taking advantage of the attraction of the Government service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of (3 of 4) [CW-17718/2016] the Constitution of India, and against the conscience of the Constitution of India.
35. The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby quashed. The State respondents are directed to pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the period of probation.
36. Now since by this judgment, we have declared the Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, to be unconstitutional and consequently quashed the same, we direct that the State Government shall, pay to all its employees, appointed on regular or ad hoc basis under the statutory Rules on substantive posts, except the employees appointed on contract, (3 of 4) [CW-3095/2017] daily rated or work charged employees, regular pay in time scale along with all allowances including Special Pay, Dearness Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, NonPracticing Allowance, Non-Clinical Allowance. Rural Allowance, Project Allowance, Mess Allowance, Washing Allowance or any other allowance, as are admissible to a confirmed employee in the same department. The payment of these allowances will not be dependent upon (4 of 4) [CW-17718/2016] the period of probation, or successful completion of the period of probation. The probationertrainees will also be entitled to deductions towards General Provident Fund(GPF), State Insurance, and Travelling Allowance, as are admissible and payable to the regular employees. They shall also be entitled to annual grade increments for the period of probation, after confirmation and Casual Leave, as in the case of other regular employees."
In view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Kumawat (Supra), the instant writ application stands closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation, enclosing a copy of the judgment in the case of Gopal Kumwat (Supra), so also a certified copy of this order while addressing a representation.
In case the petitioner's case is found covered on all fours; he too be accorded full salary for the period of probation.
However, the rights of the parties will remain subject to the adjudication by the Apex Court of the land in the SLP wherein the adjudication in the case of Gopal Kumawat (Supra), is under challenge.
(4 of 4) [CW-3095/2017] With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. Ashu/125