Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mohammad Kasif S/O Akhalak Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:6800) on 17 February, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:6800]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335/2025
Mohammad Kasif S/o Akhalak Ahmed, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Near Jama Masjid, Wazirpur, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai
Madhopur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Gazetted) And Additional Director
(Administration), Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2384/2025 Firoz Khan S/o Babu Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 26, Shaheen School Road, Dhanwantri Nagar, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Gazeted) And Additional Director (Administration), Panchayati Raj (Medical) Deparment, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2074/2025 Dr. Naresh Kumar Saxena S/o Late Shri A.k. Saxena, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 91/15, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandary, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandary, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Animal Husbandary, Jaipur.
4. Dr. Krishan Kumar Morya, Presently Posted On (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (2 of 10) [CW-2335/2025] Deputation At Directorate Gopalan Lalkothi, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2481/2025 Neelkanth Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 366, Mandir Mahadev, Arain, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Transport Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur-302001.
3. The Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur-302001.
4. Chief Manager, Ajay Meru Depot, Rsrtc, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2531/2025 Dr. Kaushal Vaishnav S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No.1140, Mahaveer Nagar-2Nd, Distrcit Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayush Department Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Ayurveda, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddhaand Homeopathy Ayush Department Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Director, Ayurved Department, Rajasthan Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2551/2025 Mukesh Kuamr Bairawa S/o Shri Ram Ratan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bairwa Basti, Jaithal, District Bundi (Rajasthan)- 323301
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Bundi.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bundi. (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (3 of 10) [CW-2335/2025]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2343/2025 Deen Dayal Saraswat S/o Shri Mangal Sain Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Vankhandeshwar Colony, Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur (Raj.), Presently Posted As Tehsildar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Gangapurcity (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Registtrar, Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. District Collector, Gangapur City, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Buri with Mr. Waseem Akram Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, through VC Mr. Praveen Sharma Mr. Sorabh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General with Ms. Dhriti Laddha Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG Ms. Sumitra Chaturvedi, Dy.G.C. Ms. Sara Parveen for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain Mr. Mahendra Shandilya, President, RHC Bar Association Mr. Vikas Sitaramji Bhale, Chairman RCSAT, through VC Mr. Anant Bhandari, Judicial Member Mr. Rajendra Singh, Registrar, RCSAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order Reportable 17/02/2025
1. Considering the akin factual narrative, the present bunch of petitions were clubbed together and are adjudicated vide this common judgment.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (4 of 10) [CW-2335/2025]
2. With consent of the counsel representing respective parties, SBCWP No. 2335/2025 titled as Mohammad Kasif vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. is taken as the lead petition. It is made clear that the present judgment shall be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis henceforth on all the connected petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) have made manifold submissions, a few of which are enumerated herein below:
3.1 That despite having alternate efficacious remedy available before the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal (hereinafter referred as, 'the Tribunal') under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act of 1976 (hereinafter referred as, 'Act of 1976'), petitioners are not getting redressal to their grievance in a speedy and timely manner. 3.2 That the working hours of the Tribunal are 10.00 AM to 05.00 PM, however the members sitting at the Tribunal have limited the same from 11.00 AM to 2.00 PM only. 3.3 That utmost 60 matters are listed on a daily basis and same are considered on first come first out basis. 3.4 That the fresh registered matters are taken up for hearing/consideration after a lapse of approximately 30 days from the date of their registration and the same is causing backlogs in disposal of cases.
3.5 That the pronouncement of reserved judgments are kept in abeyance for long period, causing hardship and prejudice to the rights of the applicants/appellants. 3.6 That the members of the Tribunal are from the cadre of retired RAS, IAS or in-service persons, who do not possess (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (5 of 10) [CW-2335/2025] requisite judicial knowledge or expertise in the said field.
Nevertheless, as per the directions enunciated in Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 455, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the provisions of separation of powers, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, the said action is arbitrary. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract is reproduced herein below:
"50. Separation of Judiciary From Executive:- The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State."
4. Consecutively, it is submitted that the adjudication qua the impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2025, is ought to be considered on its own merits.
5. Considering the contentions noted insofar and the primary contentions that the counsel at Bar have made on the erstwhile date, the Court has directed Registrar (RAT), learned Advocate General and the Chairman, RAT (through VC), to mark their presence in the Court. In compliance of the same the said authorities and learned Advocate General have marked presence and contended as follows:
5.1 That the fact qua the working timing being less than the decided and directed time, delayed listing of the matters and adjudication is admitted.
5.2 That as per learned Advocate General the Tribunal is first fact finding authority, therefore detailed orders have to be written/dictated, which consumes a lot of time, therefore most of (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (6 of 10) [CW-2335/2025] the time, the members of the Tribunal sit in their chambers during working/sitting hours of the Tribunal.
5.3 That on account of the fact that the impugned transfer orders were passed recently on 15.01.2025, due to the lifting of ban on transfers; the current situation arose and same is not due to pending vacancy of the members, jurisdiction of Corporation and the fact that many organizations of the State are not amenable to the Tribunal and other issues. However, for better, satisfactory and efficacious disposal of the matters, the directions encapsulated in Madras Bar Association (supra) can be complied, in a more prompt manner.
6. Heard and considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and authorities present in the Court/ marked appearance via V.C., scanned the record of the case and considered the judgment cited at Bar.
7. At the outset, it can be stated that is an admitted fact that the Tribunal i.e. RAT was established under the Act of 1976 and thereafter is governed and administered by the allied Rules and Act, which defines its procedures, mode of selection and appointment of members and other requisite aspects.
8. The appeal against the aggrieved orders/grievances can be preferred before the Tribunal by the 'Government servants' and others qua the disputes which fall under the ambit of 'service matters' as defined. However, issues/disputes qua the employees of Corporations, State Companies, University, Electricity Companies are not amenable to the Tribunal's jurisdiction as on date.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:6800] (7 of 10) [CW-2335/2025]
9. It is also analyzed while sitting with the present roster that the representation filed by the aggrieved employee qua the 'service matters' like promotion, seniority, transfer disciplinary proceedings, pensionary benefits, is not decided within the stipulated period or not considered at all. Therefore, this Court has passed a judgment titled Pawan Kumar Meena Vs. State of Raj. registered as SBCWP No. 1665/2024 for speedy and efficacious disposal of the representation(s) within 30 days, from the date of filing of the same. In consonant rhyme with the same the State through Chief Secretary has also passed instructions and directions.
10. It is noteworthy after filing of the representation, and non- consideration of the same; qua the said grievance/impugned order passed by the Government Department against the 'government servant' qua the service matters an appeal is preferred before the Tribunal, and the same is governed by the provisions of Act of 1976.
11. Howsoever, if the Tribunal does not hear the appeal harmoniously with the due procedure, within the stipulated time, or do not sit during whole of the working hours, as specified for State Government instrumentalities or during the Court/Tribunal hours specified by the High Court then it shall amount in violation of the fundamental right(s) of an individual as enshrined under Article 14, 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it is a settled position of law that justice delayed is justice denied. Thence, the modus adopted by the learned Tribunal not only (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (8 of 10) [CW-2335/2025] frustrates the fundamental rights of an individual but also transgresses the basic principles of law.
12. In the matter in hand and as per the contentions made by the learned counsel in presence of the authorities from learned RAT it can be noted that the conduct of the Tribunal does not commensurates' with the aim and object of Act and Rules of 1976. It is also analyzed that ever since 1976, the Act is not modified/amended according the socio-economic practices, concurring change in type of service disputes and issues, and the directions jot down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madars Bar Association (supra). Withal, with ascension of Corporations, service litigation and number of employees along with their enormous disputes, the expectation from the Tribunal has also increased as a result merely with the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur approximately 38,000 service matters are pending out of which approx. 6000 matters pertain to service disputes inter se the employee and Corporations, Electricity Company and Universities.
13. In this background, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present bunch of petitions with the directions noted hereinbelow:
13.1 That considering the pendency of cases before the learned Tribunal it is directed that the RAT shall strictly either follow the timings qua working/sitting hours in the Tribunal as followed by the Rajasthan High Court or as prescribed by the State government.
(Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:6800] (9 of 10) [CW-2335/2025] 13.2 That registry working under the learned RAT shall make endeavors to list the fresh matters, within an upper limit of 3 working days from the date of registration/filing of the same. 13.3 That the State is directed to formulate an appropriate committee preferably consisting of Advocate General/Additional Advocate Generals', Principal Secretary (Law) to aid and advise Government to constitute/reform the Tribunal/working of the learned RAT in consonance with the ratio decendi of Madras Bar Association (supra). The said committee may be constituted in consonance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution of India and allied provisions. It is recommended that the Chairman of the said committee be a retired High Court Justice/Principal District Judge with an experience of atleast five years, along with other requisite technical, administrative, judicial members and practicing advocates. The said committee shall give its recommendation qua the infrastructural needs, technical support and staff, vacancies and its repercussions, and shall formulate directives for smooth, speedy and efficacious disposal of the matters pending before the RAT. It is envisaged that the said committee be formulated expeditiously, and the recommendations made thenceforth be considered, pronto. 13.4 That the definition of 'government servant' and other definitions be also reviewed and appropriate course for amendment be taken. As a proposition the definition of 'government servant' has to include the employees from the State instrumentalities, for instance, Employees of Corporations, Universities, Public Sector Banks, Electricity Companies etc. (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:6800] (10 of 10) [CW-2335/2025]
14. Qua the present bunch of petitions, it is directed that the same be listed within an upper limit of 7 working days, from the date of passing of this judgment, and adjudicate the same, pronto.
15. In light of the above, the present petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
16. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to list these matters before this court on 26.05.2025 for compliance of the directions enumerated hereinabove. Respondents are directed to update the same through learned Advocate General/AAGs.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /331-332, 111,121,127-128, 339 (Downloaded on 20/02/2025 at 12:40:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)