Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 September, 2016
Author: Jaishree Thakur
Bench: Jaishree Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 10056 of 2016
PETITIONERS:-
1.Surendra Singh S/o Dalpat Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Sovaniya, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Geeta Vishnoi D/o Bhaluram Vishnoi, aged about 25 years, R/o 38, Near Meerakunj, B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, S/o Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit, aged about 27 years, R/o A-105, Rajbagh Sursagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4. Ashu Singh S/o Ram Singh, aged about 31 years R/o Goyalo Ki Dhani, Post Kali Beri, Sursagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
5. Prem Singh Tak S/o Amraram Tak, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Naanan, Post & Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
6.Meenakshi Malik D/o Narayan Malik, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
7. Reezak Khan S/o Hussain Khan aged about 23 years, R/o Jaitsar, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
8. Rupesh Singh S/o Gajendra Singh, aged about 31 years, R/o Sovaniya, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
9. Raghvendra Das S/o Bhanwar Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Bera Samdara, Post Khariya Meethapur, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
10.Santlal Meghwal S/o Jeet Singh Meghwal, aged about 37 years, R/o Village & Post Topariya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
11. Umed Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar aged about 26 years, R/o 18E/256, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)
12. Jitendra Kumar Bamaniya S/o Banshilal Bamaniya, aged about 31 years, R/o Hari Singh Nagar, Geelakor Peelwa, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
VS
RESPONDENTS
1. Union of India through the Jonit Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers' Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner cum Ex-officio Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Director, State Agriculture Management & Extension Training Institute (SAMETI), Academic Building, 4th Floor, Durgapura, Jaipur.
5. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Ex-officio Project Director, ATMA, Jodhpur.
Date of Order : 6.9.2016
HON'BLE Miss JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. Ravindra Singh for the Petitioner
ORDER
--------
1. Heard.
2. It is contended that the petitioners came to be appointed on the post of Block Technical Manager and Assistant Technical Manager under Agriculture Technology Management Agency Scheme on contractual basis for the vacancies of 2015-16. Their contractual period came to be extended on 26.02.2016.
The Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi, who is Mission Director, addressed a letter to the respondents stating therein that specific allocations had been made for the year 2016-17 for a sum of Rs.2043.14 lakhs and that additional requirements of funds could be considered for release in case the State would make swift progress in implementation of the said scheme. It was also noted that despite having allocation of funds, the State Governments had discontinued the services of contractual man power and the State Governments were requested to issue instructions for filling-up of ATMA man power vacancies as per ATMA Guidelines. Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite having the necessary funds and instructions issued from the Department of Agriculture, New Delhi, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Several representations have already been made in this regard but are yet to be decided. Counsel for the petitioners seeks limited prayer at the present moment that the representations filed should be decided in view of the fact that there are sufficient allocations of funds under the Scheme and in view of the fact that the State Governments have been requested for filling-up the said posts.
2. In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to move a fresh representation before the respondents along with certified copy of the order passed and in case the petitioners move such a representation, the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter by passing a speaking order.
3. Needless to say, if the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.
( JAISHREE THAKUR ), J.
mamta 4