Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gautam Kumar Sharma And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 20 September, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5508/2011 Anil Kumar Patwa Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 2. SB Civil Writ Petition No.11163/2011 Azad Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7810/2011 Pawan Kumar Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8673/2011 Shiv Raj Singh Rathore & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3238/2011 Ashok Kumar Jangid & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3239/2011 Dilip Kumar Saini & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3574/2011 Ganesh Ram Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 8.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3764/2011 Dinesh Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 9.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3998/2011 Balram Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 10.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4233/2011 Amit Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 11.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4390/2011 Mukesh Kumar Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 12.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4520/2011 Gautam Kumar Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 13.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4731/2011 Yogesh Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 14.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4943/2011 Kailash Chand Sherawat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 15.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4944/2011 Mukesh Tak Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 16.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5455/2011 Arjun Lal Jat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 17.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5478/2011 Shivraj Singh Rathore Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 18.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5509/2011 Kajod Ram Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 19.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5510/2011 Lokesh Jain Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 20.SB Civil Writ Petition No.5992/2011 Rajbeer Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 21.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6000/2011 Prem Chand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 22.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6100/2011 Gautam Krishan Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 23.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6101/2011 Mahendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 24.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6626/2011 Shish Ram Gurjar & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 25.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6627/2011 Mukut Swaroop Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 26.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6666/2011 Chandra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 27.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6702/2011 Rajesh Kuma Saini Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 28.SB Civil Writ Petition No.6882/2011 Deva Ram Saharan Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 29.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7000/2011 Rajesh Patidar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 30.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7001/2011 Lokesh Kumar Suthar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 31.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7002/2011 Devendra Kumar Prajapati Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 32.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7224/2011 Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 33.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7239/2011 Dinesh Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 34.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7300/2011 Surendra Saini & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 35.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7398/2011 Smt Komal Kalal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 36.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7464/2011 Inderlal Guru Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 37.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7465/2011 Shyam Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 38.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7498/2011 Krishan Lal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 39.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7484/2011 Vachnaram Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 40.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7627/2011 Hans Raj Gurjar & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 41.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7641/2011 Dinesh Kumar Gautam Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 42.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7663/2011 Alok Solera Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 43.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7687/2011 Karan Singh Jat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 44.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7688/2011 Mahaveer Prasad Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 45.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7703/2011 Jitendra Singh Choudhary Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 46.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7714/2011 Mahendra Kumar Goyal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 47.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7716/2011 Bodilal Jat & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 48.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7744/2011 Surendra Peepliwal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 49.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7809/2011 Lalit Kishore Yadav & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 50.SB Civil Writ Petition No.7811/2011 Chandra Prakash Soni & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 51.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8303/2011 Pushpendra Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 52.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8346/2011 Kailash Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 53.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8347/2011 Hitendra Kumar Dave Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 54.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8373/2011 Sandeep Kumar Sharma & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 55.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8416/2011 Satish Kumar Jeengar & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 56.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8493/2011 Ailkar Singh & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 57.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8528/2011 Sanjay Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 58.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8546/2011 Choutha Ram & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 59.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8532/2011 Vinod Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 60.SB Civil Writ Petition No.8547/2011 Randhir Singh & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 61.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9036/2011 Abhishek Jain Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 62.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9079/2011 Mahendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 63.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9123/2011 Madhu Krishan Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 64.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9221/2011 Smt Sajna Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 65.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9284/2011 Heetendra Singh Gurjar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 66.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9328/2011 Satyendra Kumar Nagar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 67.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9437/2011 Satish Kumar Gupta & anr Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 68.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9645/2011 Krishan Chandra Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 69.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9785/2011 Mahendra Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 70.SB Civil Writ Petition No.9882/2011 Mohammad Khalid Khan & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 71.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10322/2011 Surendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 72.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10375/2011 Rajesh Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 73.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10462/2011 Nirmal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 74.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10751/2011 Sudheer Kumar Jain Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 75.SB Civil Writ Petition No.10975/2011 Neha Bakliwal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 76.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11164/2011 Mohit Kumar Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 77.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11166/2011 Mohd. Asif Khan Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 78.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11167/2011 Pradeep Chand Goyal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 79.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11169/2011 Raj Kumar Sain Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 80.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11170/2011 Lakhan Lal Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 81.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11171/2011 Namo Narayan Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 82.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11249/2011 Jagdish Prasad Rathore Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 83.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11498/2011 Girdhari Lal Jat Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 84.SB Civil Writ Petition No.11880/2011 Roshan Lal Sain Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 20.9.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr SP Sharma, Sr Adv with Mr SS Shekhawat Mr Anil Kumar Sharma Mr Amardeep Atwal Mr Atmaram Meena Mr RP Saini Mr Krishan Sharma Mr Manish Kumar Mr RS Bhardwaj Mr SK Singodiya Mr Praveen Sharma Mr Suresh Dhenwal Mr Liyakat Ali Mr Bharat Saini Mr Sandeep Garssa - for petitioners Mr GS Bapna, Advocate General with Mr Venkatesh Garg Mrs Manju Jain for National Rural Health Mission Dr VB Sharma, Addl Government Counsel for respondents BY THE COURT:
With consent of the parties, all the writ petitions have been finally heard. Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been prayed, all these writ petition are decided by this common order.
Learned counsel submit that petitioners were appointed by the respondents on various posts like Accountant, Junior Ayurved Nurse/ Compounder, Computer Operator, Block Asha Facilitator, Pharmacist, PHC Asha Supervisor etc under the Chief Minister Below Poverty Line Jeevan Raksha Kosh Scheme (for short 'BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh'). They were given appointment on contract basis. While petitioners were discharging their duties continuously, a short term advertisement dated 6.9.2010 at Annexure-2 in CW No.5508/2011, inviting applications for the posts held by the petitioners, was issued by the respondents under the National Rural Health Mission (for short 'the NRHM'). Apprehending termination, various writ petitions were filed, which were then decided by this court, wherein, few petitions/ appeals were dismissed and in other appeals, a direction was issued to consider case of the petitioners in the light of the circular dated 9.8.2010 at Annexure-3. The aforesaid circular provides for continuance of those engaged in BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Scheme against the posts in NRHM. After the judgment in appeal by the Division Bench on 19.1.2011, respondents issued order dated 4.2.2011 at Annexure-5 deleting condition No.8 of the circular dated 9.8.2011, thereby, those engaged in BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Scheme were not to be adjusted in NRHM. Petitioners were informed about the aforesaid by the office order dated 10.2.2011 at Annexure-6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, these writ petitions have been filed.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh so as the NRHM Scheme are run by the State Government, hence, respondents should not make an effort to replace the petitioners by another set of contractual/ temporary employees with the same nature of employment as exist in favour of the petitioners. The endeavour of the respondents should be to continue all those who are required to undertake work under NRHM. The respondents were not required to issue a short term advertisement for filling up those posts under NRHM. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to maintain condition No.8 of the circular dated 9.8.2010 and, accordingly, impugned orders dated 4.2.2011 and subsequent order dated 10.2.2011 may be set aside. Respondents may accordingly be directed to adjust petitioners under NRHM to the extent of requirement if, at all, certain posts have been reduced in BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh.
Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, submits that two different schemes have unnecessarily been mixed up by the petitioners. So far as NRHM is concerned, it was introduced by the Central Government some time in the year 2005 and it will exist till 31.3.2012. The NRHM is funded by the Government of India. Whereas, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh was introduced w.e.f. 1.1.2009. Thus, petitioners are having no right to seek continuation or appointment under NRHM. This is more so when the short term advertisement to fill up certain posts under NRHM was not acted upon, as such, no person has been given appointment under NRHM, thus, very basis of grievance of petitioner no more survives. In fact, no appointment have been given under NRHM pursuant to the short term advertisement dated 6.9.2010, rather respondents have taken a decision not to engage any person on contract basis or through placement agency. This is coming out from the circular dated 17.6.2011 at Annexure-R/7 issued by the State Government. For carrying out the work of BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, a further order was issued on 4.8.2011 at Annexure-R/8, wherein, assignment of work is allowed on 'job basis' i.e. a person is tasked to manage all the affairs which include to have the required accommodation and other infrastructure with the work so that government is not required to incur further expenditure. Looking to it, various writ petitions were dismissed by this court which includes even dismissal of special appeal holding that a person, employed on contract basis, has no right for continuation.
Learned Advocate General admits that petitioners should not be replaced by another set of contractual/ temporary employees either by a direct contract or through placement agency. The government has already taken a decision not to engage fresh hands on contract basis even through placement agency. It has further been decided that no person would be replaced by another set of contractual/ temporary employee.
In fact, discontinuation had to be effected on account of reduction of stipulated funds in the scheme by the Government of India. As against expected funds of Rs.45 crore, only a sum of Rs.20 crore have been sanctioned under the scheme. Looking to lesser financial support to the scheme, respondents were left with no option but to reduce strength of the employees which was 1712 in the year 2009 but it has been reduced to 886 for the financial year 2010-11. Therefore, respondents may be given liberty to discontinue persons who are found in excess to the required strength. While doing so, respondents will maintain the principle of 'last come first go' at the block level. On account of reduction of requirement of employees, the respondents will remove only those candidates where scheme is closed in a particular block, thereby, whoever was engaged in that block, cannot be continued. If the scheme is continued in the block but with reduced strength, then person lastly appointed would first go. In the aforesaid circumstances, all these writ petitions may be disposed of with appropriate directions to redress grievance of petitioners. This is more so when withdrawal of condition No.8 of circular dated 9.8.2010 remains of no significance as the government has taken a decision not to engage fresh hands in NRHM pursuant to the short term advertisement thus question of shifting of surplus employees of BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh Scheme in NRHM Scheme no more survives. In the aforesaid circumstances, respondents would be in a position to even maintain directions issued by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sardar Singh Jat & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors, DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.589/2011, along with other connected appeals, decided on 10.5.2011.
Learned counsel for petitioners submit that they are in agreement with the learned Advocate General if the writ petitions are disposed of with appropriate directions as given out by the learned Advocate General.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and agreement shown by the learned counsel for parties, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions/observations -
1. Respondents will not replace petitioners by another set of contractual/ temporary employees either by direct contract or through placement agency.
2. Petitioners would be continued in service till BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued but subject to requirement of their services. If the required strength is reduced, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of petitioners but it should be after following principle of 'last come first go' at the block level where any of the petitioner is working. In case of withdrawal of the scheme from a particular block, respondents would be at liberty to discontinue services of the petitioners/persons working in that block and in case of continuance of scheme in the block but with reduction of strength, principle of 'last come first go' would be applied at that block.
3. As agreed by respondents, they will not to make appointments under NRHM pursuant to short term advertisement dated 6.9.2010, rather, they have agreed not to engage any one on contract basis by a direct contract or through placement agency. It can be only on 'job basis' and for which preference would be given to the existing persons if they are in position to undertake work on 'job basis'.
4. In future, if additional hands are required to undertake work of BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, the persons, who have been discontinued, would be given preference for appointment.
5. Petitioners, who have been taken under NRHM pursuant to interim order of this court, can be discontinued if additional hands are not required under NRHM as their continuance was pursuant to the interim order of this court only but, while doing so, respondents will take note of their previous engagement at the block level. If the BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh is continued in his/ her block then such a candidate/petitioner would be considered based on principle of 'last come first go'. If he is the person first appointed in comparison to other at the block level where the strength is reduced, then petitioner would be entitled to seek continuance on the principle of 'last come first go'.
6. In future also, if there is further reduction in requirement of hands, respondents will apply the same formula of 'last come first go' at the block level for discontinuance of surplus hands as has been given above.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, stay applications also stand disposed of.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J