Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Anil Kumar Sharma&Ors; vs State (Ayurved Department)Ors on 28 March, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253 / 2017
1. Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Prahlad Sahay Sharma, by
Caste Sharma,, Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 4/207, Vidyadhar
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Dr. Man Mohan Meena Son of Shri Jay Lal Meena, by Caste
Meena,, Aged About 33 Years, Village Dant Ka Pura, Post Kotri,
Tehsil Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj.)
3. Dr. Pratima Bohara Daughter of Shri C.M. Bohra, Wife of Shri
Vaibhav Choudhary, by Caste Jain,, Aged About 30 Years, 1/23,
Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Son of Shri R.L. Meena, by Caste Meena,,
Aged About 30 Years, Gaumati Colony, Near Old Truck Union,
District Karauli (Raj.)
5. Dr. Rajveer Kaur Daughter of Shri Sukhdev Singh,, Aged About
30 Years, A-16, Arya Nagar, Near N.K. Public School, Murlipura,
Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Dr. Bharti Singhal Daughter of Shri R.S. Sutrakar,, Aged About
34 Years, 1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Dr. Mukesh Solanki Son of Shri Hajari Lal, by Caste Solanki,,
Aged About 32 Years, At Present Working As Medical Officer At
Government Homeopathic Hospital, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
8. Dr. Tilak Raj Arora Son of Shri Leela Ram Arora, by Caste
Punjabi, Aged About 40 Years, Plot No. 4/426, Jawahar Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
9. Dr. Kailash Prasad Verma Son of Shri Sharwan Lal Verma, by
Caste Raigar, Aged About 35 Years, Raigaron Ki Dhani, Village &
Post Deoli, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
10. Dr. Mukesh Chand Goyal Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, by Caste
Goyal,, Aged About 32 Years, Halena Road, Katra, Nadbai District
Bharatpur (Raj.) At Present Working As Medical Officer At
Government Homeopathic Hospital, Nayabas Bhusawar, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
11. Dr. Virendra Pal Singh Rawat Son of Shri Pancham Singh
Rawat, by Caste Rawat,, Aged About 33 Years, Plot No. 29,
Satyam Moolchand Nagar, Opposite I.O.C. Colony, Sanlar Road,
Beawer, District Ajmer (Raj.)
12. Dr. Harminder Kaur Daughter of Shri Devendra Kaur, Wife of
Shri Yogendra Taneja, by Caste Khatri Sikkh,, Aged About 36
Years, 1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
13. Dr. Gunjan Bhatt Daughter of Shri B.L. Kalra, Wife of Sandeep
Kumar Bhatt, by Caste Bhatt,, Aged About 32 Years, A-16, Arya
Nagar, Near N.K. Public School, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
(2 of 6)
[CW-4253/2017]
14. Dr. Manish Lavana Son of Shri Mahendra Kumar Lavana, by
Caste Lavana,, Aged About 34 Years, 1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
15. Dr. Mohinish Yadav Son of Shri Ram Jatan Nanuram Yadav, by
Caste Yadav,, Aged About 34 Years, Plot No. 441, Ganesh Nagar,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
16. Dr. Garima Sharma Daughter of Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma,
by Caste Sharma,, Aged About 34 Years, Village & Post Beawar
Khas, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
17. Dr. Pratima Bohara Daughter of Shri Chandmal Bohra, Wife of
Shri Vaibhav Choudhary, by Caste Bohra,, Aged About 35 Years,
A-16, Arya Nagar, Near N.K. Public School, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
18. Dr. Jakiya Jahan Daughter of Shri Mansoor Ali,, Aged About 30
Years, Plot No. 622, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
19. Dr. Dharmendra Singh Bhullar Son of Shri Avtar Singh,, Aged
About 31 Years, Plot No. 623, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
20. Dr. Siddharth Panchal Son of Shri Yogendra Panchal,, Aged
About 34 Years, 1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
21. Dr. Leela Kumari Raigar Daughter of Shri Bhanwar Lal Raigar,
by Caste Raigar,, Aged About 30 Years, A-16, Arya Nagar, Near
N.K. Public School, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
22. Dr. Raina Jain Daughter of Shri Jai Kumar Jain, by Caste Jain,,
Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 668, Opposite Police Quarter,
Shastri Nagar, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)
23. Dr. Sarika Sharma Daughter of Shri Shiv Charan Sharma,,
Aged About 32 Years, A-16, Arya Nagar, Near N.K. Public School,
Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
24. Dr. Ekta Agrawal Daughter of Shri A.S. Agrawal, by Caste
Agarwal,, Aged About 32 Years, 4/426, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
25. Dr. Mahesh Prasad Nayak Son of Late Shri Somnath, Aged
About 33 Years, A-1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
26. Dr. Vandana Pareek Daughter of Shri Rajendra Pareek, by
Caste Pareek, Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 89, Major Shaitan
Singh Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
27. Dr. Soniya Tetarwal Daughter of Shri Ratan Ram Tetarwal,
Aged About 32 Years, Plot No. 119/336, Thadi Market, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
28. Dr. Madhu Sohu Daughter of Shri Chena Ram Sohu, Aged
About 30 Years, Flat No. 10/71, Flat G-I, Hare Krishan Apartment,
Sector-10, Chitrakoot Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
(3 of 6)
[CW-4253/2017]
29. Dr. Arif Mohammad Hamnif Malik Son of Shri Mohammad Hanif
Malik, Aged About 33 Years, Plot No. 4/207, Vidyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
30. Dr. Sameer Bhardwaj Son of Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, by
Caste Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, 1/23, Vidyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Department of
Ayurved and Indian Medical, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Director, Homeopathic Treatment Department, Rajasthan Jaipur,
AYUSH Bhawan, Sector No. 26, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 28/03/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved 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 (Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.), decided on 29th July, 2015, 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 same functions as confirmed employees.
(4 of 6) [CW-4253/2017]
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 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, (5 of 6) [CW-4253/2017] 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, 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, Non Practicing 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 the period of probation, or successful completion of the period of probation. The probationer trainees 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 case, the claim of the petitioners is found to be covered by the adjudication referred to herein-above; the petitioners be also allowed the same benefits.
Needless to observe that the rights of the parties would be governed by the final adjudication on SLP pending before the Apex Court of the land wherein judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra), is under challenge.
In the result, the writ proceedings are disposed off, in the (6 of 6) [CW-4253/2017] light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29th July, 2015, in the case of Gopal Kumwat (supra).
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to full salary for the period of probation; subject to adjudication on the SLP pending before the Apex Court of the land which would govern the rights of the parties.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. SS/82