Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Renu Prajapati vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep)Ors on 31 October, 2012
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.5411/2012 Renu Prajapati Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/10/2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. Babulal Sharma, for petitioner
Dr. Ganesh Parihar, Dy. Government Counsel *** With the consent of parties, the writ petition was heard finally at the stage of hearing application for vacation of the stay order.
By this writ petition, the action of the respondents is challenged for non-acceptance of joining and denial of payment of salary since May, 2011.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that vide order dated 9th September, 2008, the petitioner was appointed as Programme Officer in MNREGA. The period of service was extended from time to time. Respondents, thereafter, terminated the service of the petitioners and others, thus, at that stage the petitioner along with others preferred a writ petition. The writ petition was, thereafter, decided by this court vide judgment dated 31.01.2011. The petitioner was willing to work on the lower post of Assistant Programme Officer, but she was not allowed to join, thus, this writ petition was filed at that stage. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Programme Officer and she is willing to work on the lower post instead on the post of Programme Officer. The petitioner in the meanwhile took maternity leave, but it was taken to be a case of unwillingness of the petitioner to work on the lower post of Assistant Programme Officer, whereas the petitioner had no intention to do so. The petitioner had given joining on the post immediately on completion of maternity leave in the Month of March, 2012 and she is presently working. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioner on the post of Assistant Programme Officer.
Learned Counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Programme Officer. However, she was not possessing required qualification of the post, thus, writ petition filed by the petitioner and others was decided by this Court with the directions that if petitioners are willing to work on the post of Additional or Assistant Programme Officer then their case may be considered by the department. Those who were willing to work on the post of Assistant Programme Officer were continued. The petitioner was unwilling to work on the lower post, thus, she did not join the post rather went on maternity leave. In the background aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Programme Officer for a specific period. The term of employment was extended from time to time and, in between, the respondents raised the qualification which is not possessed by the petitioner. Apprehending dis-continuance from service rather termination, bunch of writ petitions were preferred by affected employees which includes the petitioner. The writ petitions were disposed of by this court vide judgment dated 31.01.2011 in bunch of writ petitions led by writ petition of Kamlesh Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. bearing No.10616/2009. Therein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for continuity of their service on the lower post of Assistant Programme Officer. The respondents have continued similar candidates on the post of Assistant Programme Officer. The allegation against the petitioner is regarding non-joining though the fact reveals that the petitioner was willing to work as Assistant Programme Officer and presently she is working on the aforesaid post only. It is no doubt that petitioner sought maternity leave in between and after completion of leave, not allowed to join the post, thus, interim order was passed by this court. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner is working with the respondents. In totality of the facts, I am of the opinion that till similarly placed candidates are continued as Assistant Programme Officer, the petitioner should also be allowed to work on the same post for which she has shown her willingness. The rights of the petitioner would, however, be governed by the terms of engagement and till posts exist in MNAREGA, thus, terms and conditions of continuance would otherwise remain subject to continuance of the scheme and rules. The petitioner would be entitled to the wages for the period she has actually performed the work.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. This disposes the application for vacation of stay order as well.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/5411CWP2012.doc Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.