Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bheemraj Sharma, S/O Late Shri Radhey ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2021
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.146/2019
1. Heera Lal S/o Late Shri Kaluram, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o House No. 408, Ward No. 11, Cinema Road, Behind
Ramdev Mandir, Dhanka Basti Parav, Ajmer District Ajmer
(Rajasthan).
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 57
Years, R/o House No. 416/13, Goyal Chaki Ke Pass, Nai
Basti, Uit Colony Ke Samne, Ajmer District Ajmer
(Rajasthan).
3. Tara Chand S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o House No. 383/16, Cinema Road, Behind Ramdev
Mandir, Parav Dhanka Basti, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
4. Dinesh Chand Joshi S/o Late Shri Bhagwati Lal Joshi,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o E-38, Shastri Nagar, Lohagarh
Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
5. Chaturbhuj S/o Shri Ambalal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
House No. 772/29, Rawan-Ki-Bagichi, Nala Basti, Akhare-
Ka-Pass, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
6. Ghasiram S/o Shri Parasram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
House No. 199/15, Kayasthya Mohalla, Bijasan Mata Ka
Mandir, Purani Mandi, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
7. Heera Lal S/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
677/26 Gandhinagar, Gujarwas, Saibaba Mandir Road,
Ajainagar Ajmer (Rajasthan).
8. Gajraj Singh S/o Late Shri Manna Lal, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Hansvilla, Plot No. 115, Vinayak Vihar, B.k Kaul
Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
9. Rameshwar Lal S/o Late Shri, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Gangabai Mandir Ke Pass, Gram Nareli Via Madar District
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
10. Srikishan S/o Late Shri Geegaji, Aged About 69 Years,
R/o Rajendrapura, Gautam School Ke Pass, Hathibhata,
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
11. Bhanwar Lal Sharma S/o Late Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About
66 Years, R/o House No. 31, Uit Qr. Colony, Pahla Bagichi
Ke Peechhe, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer. (Rajasthan).
12. Ram Dayal S/o Late Shri Gopal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
House No. 405A, Ward No. 25, Dhanka Basti, Asha Ganj,
(Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM)
(2 of 17) [WRW-146/2018]
Sant Kanwar School Ke Samne, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
13. Dharam Chand S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 69 Years,
R/o Tanaji Nagar, Gali No. 10, Shiv Mandir Ke Pichche,
Bhajanganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
14. Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Shri Punam Chand, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Anasagar Ghati, Ganj Shiv Mandir Ki Gali,
Ajmer (Rajasthan).
15. Gulab Chand S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
House No. 485/6, Bagri Basti, Mallusar Road, Ajmer
(Rajasthan). Working As Health Worker / Mpw Under Joint
Director Of Medical And Health Services, Ajmer Zone,
Ajmer.
16. Smt. Bimla W/o Late Shri Shravan Kumar, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Chourasiyawas Road, Dwarka Nagar, Gali No.
2, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan). Working As Health
Worker / Mpw Joint Director Of Medical And Health
Services, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer.
17. Smt. Mangibai W/o Late Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Shaktinagar, Aam Ka Talab, Sanskar Public
School Ke Pass, Ajmer (Rajasthan). Working As Health
Worker / Mpw Under Joint Director Of Medical And Health
Services, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer.
18. Ram Narain S/o Late Shri Gordhan Lal, Aged About 57
Years, R/o 286/7, Above Dry Cleaner Shop, Dargah Bazar,
Ajmer (Rajasthan). Working As Health Worker / Mpw
Under Joint Director Of Medical And Health Services,
Ajmer Zone, Ajmer.
19. Chhote Lal S/o Shri Kunji Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Janta Colony, 2-Gha-5 Gandhi Grih, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer
(Rajasthan). Working As Health Worker / Mpw Under Joint
Director Of Medical And Health Services, Ajmer Zone,
Ajmer.
20. Laxmi Narain S/o Shri Birdhi Chand, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Bhagwan Ganj, Prishviraj Nagar, Ajmer
(Rajasthan). Working As Health Worker / Mpw Under Joint
Director Of Medical And Health Services, Ajmer Zone,
Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To
(Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM)
(3 of 17) [WRW-146/2018]
Government, Medical And Health Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services,
Swasthyaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Joint Director Of Medical And Health Services, Ajmer
Zone, Ajmer.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 137/2019 Indraj Meena S/o Late Shri Bhambhali Ram Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gram Post Reni, Tehsil Reni District Alwar (Rajasthan) Presently Working As Health Worker (Male) Under Chief Medical And Health Officer, Alwar. (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Director (Admn.) Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Swasthyaya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 144/2019 Bheemraj Sharma, S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No. 1028, Bagruwalon Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, District Jaipur At Present Working As Health Worker/mphw Under C.m. And H.o., Jaipur-I (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Director (Admn.), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Swasthyaya Bhawan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (4 of 17) [WRW-146/2018]
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-I (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 145/2019 Smt. Hukam Kanwar W/o Late Shri Gopal Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Plot No. 27, New Karni Colony, Harmada, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Director (Admn.), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Swasthyaya Bhawan, Jaipur
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-1St/2Nd, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 152/2019
1. Sedmal S/o Shri Bachchoo Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o House No. 206, Santosh Sagar Colony, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Gyarsi Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o House No. 3832, Bairwa Basti, Galta Road, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Deva Ram Saini S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o In Front Of Plot No. 889, Near Government Dispensary, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Gopal Lal Dhobi S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o C-77, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
5. Man Singh S/o Shri Bhom Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 3768, Purohit Ki Haveli, Saras Sadan, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
6. Hukam Chand Jangid S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Jangid, Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. 20 Vishnu Nagar, Dadi Ka Phatak, Byepass, Jhotwara, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (5 of 17) [WRW-146/2018]
7. Bodi Lal Mali S/o Shri Babu Lal Mali, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Plot No. 9, Purohit Ji Ka Bawri, Agrea Road, Jaipur District Jaipur
8. Shambhu Dayal Gupta S/o Shri Panna Lal Gupta, Aged About 63 Years, R/o A-47, Purana Vidhyadhar Nagar, Sector No. 8, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
9. Narain Lal Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. B-32, Vijaynagar-Ii, Kartarpura, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
10. Sita Ram Mali S/o Ram Lal Mali, Aged About 67 Years, R/o House No. A-13, Kalyanji Ki Kothi, Kishan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11. Laxmi Narain Balai S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 48, West Vihar, Keshupura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
12. Bansi Lal Nai S/o Shri Kalyan Mal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o House No. 17, Jamnagar Vistar, Sodala, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
13. Kesar Chand S/o Shri Suwa Lal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Bada Mahadev, Near Temple, Regron Ka Mohalla, Village Baswa, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prakhar Gupta, Adv. & Mr.Avinash Chaudhary, Adv. for Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG.
(Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM)
(6 of 17) [WRW-146/2018]
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, Adv. with Mr.Rubal
Tholia, Adv.
Mr.Praveen Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Mukesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Narendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
30/09/2021
These review petitions have been filed by the
Employer-State for recalling the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions, filed by the writ petitioners.
This Court finds that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12000/2017 titled as Heera Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. was decided vide order dated 25.07.2017 and this Court considering the statement given by counsel for the State, had allowed the petitions in terms of the order passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1068/2014 titled as Govind Dan Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan, dated 17.12.2015.
The writ petitioners were not granted benefit as per the order passed by this Court and as such, they filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.784/2018 (Heera Lal & Ors. Vs. Veenu Gupta & Ors.). During pendency of the contempt petition, counsel appearing for the State had made a statement that the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the case as filed by the writ petitioners and they were not to be treated at par with Govind Dan Charan (supra) and as such, statement was made before this Court that in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra), the petitioner therein was a Malaria Surveillance Worker (MSW) and was absorbed as Multi Purpose (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (7 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] Health Worker (Male) and pay-scales of the posts of Malaria Surveillance Worker and Multi Purpose Health Worker were the same and benefit of selection scale was thus computed from the date of initial appointment as Malaria Surveillance Worker and the petitioners in the writ petition filed by Heera Lal & Others were engaged as Field Workers, Superior Field Workers & Cholera Field Workers and their absorption as Multi Purpose Health Workers were on a higher pay-scale and as such, selection scale could not have been given to them from the date of their initial appointment as Field Workers, etc. from the date of absorption as Multi Purpose Health Worker.
This Court considering the scope of contempt petition found that proper forum is by way of filing a review petition against the order dated 25.07.2017 and as such, the contempt petition was deferred.
Learned counsel Mr.Prakhar Gupta appearing for the review petitioners submitted that after order passed by this Court in the contempt petition, the present review petitions have been filed before this Court.
Learned counsel submitted that this Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) and claim of the writ petitioners was to be examined independently.
Learned counsel further submitted that the issue of counting ad-hoc temporary services for the purpose of grant of selection grade is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in [(2009) 12 SCC 49] and decision given by the Apex Court in the case of (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (8 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors. reported in [(2014) 14 SCC 77].
Learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.382/2013 tiled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors. and other connected appeals decided on 25.03.2014, has also considered the similar controversy and the petitioners therein were the employee who had claimed the benefit on his appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker, was not granted benefit by taking into account the earlier service rendered by such employee on ad-hoc basis in the capacity of Malaria Surveillance Worker/Vaccinator.
Learned counsel Mr.Prakhar Gupta submitted that the similar controversy of granting benefit of ad-hoc service for the purpose of selection grade was considered by the Single Bench at Jodhpur in the case of Bhiya Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14215/2013 and the Court had allowed the petition vide order dated 14.02.2017.
Learned counsel submitted that the State had preferred the review petition (S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.142/2019) against the order passed by the Single Bench and the Review Petition too, came to be dismissed by the Single Bench on 24.09.2019 and thereafter, the State has preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.341/2020 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand Joshi and other connected appeals and the Division Bench therein has stayed the operation of the order passed by the Single Bench. (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM)
(9 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] Learned counsel on the strength of the said judgment submitted that it is no more res-integra that if any employee who renders his services without his regular appointment and he is not placed in a regular service of the cadre, no such benefit can be claimed by him for the purpose of counting his service for grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service.
Learned counsel while making submissions submitted that, in the present facts of the case, all the writ petitioners who were earlier working as Field Worker, Superior Field Worker and Cholera Field Worker and they were absorbed as Multi Purpose Health Worker on a higher pay-scale and as such, their services can only be counted from the date when such writ petitioners were absorbed as Multi Purpose Health Worker.
Learned counsel further submitted that initial appointment of all the writ petitioners was not after undergoing the regular mode of selection and only on the basis of names being called from Employment Exchange or putting a notice on the Notice Board of the employer, the selections were made.
Learned counsel submitted that definition of regular employee has been considered by the Apex Court, by time and again, that service law always means a person who become a 'member of service' when his appointment made in a substantive capacity or his appointment made, as per provision under the Recruitment Rules.
Learned counsel submitted that all the writ petitioners were not members of the service i.e. the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter 'Rules of 1965').
(Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM)
(10 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] Learned counsel further argued that the corresponding amendment was made in the schedule appended to the Rules of 1965 and it is only in the year 1992, the different persons who were working as Field Worker, Superior Field Worker and Cholera Field Worker were to be re-designated as 'Health Worker (Male)' and as such, whatever service has been rendered by any employee in whatever capacity before their re- designation/absorption, such service cannot be counted for the purpose of giving them benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service.
Learned counsel further submitted that minimum requirement for the post of Health Worker after amendment being made in the year 1992 also required that the candidate should be Secondary pass or its equivalent with 18 months training course of Health Worker (Male).
Learned counsel submitted that there is no material to support the contention of writ petitioners that they had undergone the 18 months training course of Health Worker and as such, their induction/re-designation as 'Health Worker' cannot relate back to their past service or appointment in ad-hoc capacity.
Learned counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners since did not complete the one year training on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker, their fixation was done as per the notification dated 06.10.1993 in "Others" category and their pays were to be stepped-up from 730-1250 to 800-1250.
Learned counsel further submitted that after completion of 9,18 & 27 years of service as Multi Purpose Health Worker, the pay-scales of 975-1720, 1200-2050 and 1690-2900 has been (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (11 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] granted to the writ petitioners and accordingly, fixation order was also issued.
Learned counsel further submitted that the benefit of higher pay-scales is not admissible to the writ petitioners in accordance with the circular dated 25.01.1992 and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narayan Chaturvedi (supra) and as such, counsel submits that this Court is required to recall/review the order passed for granting the benefits of selection scale to the writ petitioners and the matter is required to be heard afresh by recalling the order.
Learned counsel Mr.Prakhar Gupta also places reliance on a judgment of Full Bench passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.589/2015 in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram and other connected matters, decided vide common order dated 03.07.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners- Employees submitted that the review petition filed by the State is wholly devoid of merit.
Learned counsel Mr.Vigyan Shah appearing for the respondents-employees submitted that this Court while passing the order in the contempt petition was led to believe by counsel for the State that the case of the present writ petitioners and case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) was not on similar footing at par and as such, on such statement being made, the permission was sought from this Court to file the review petition.
Learned counsel submitted that issue with regard to grant of benefit to the employees-writ petitioners, who were working as Field Worker, Superior Worker & Cholera Field Worker (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (12 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] is required to be considered in view of the decision passed by this Court in Govind Dan Charan (supra).
Learned counsel submitted that the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has taken into account the fact of grant of pay-scale of Rs.975- 1720 and the same pay-scale being granted on completion of 9 years of service and as such, the Division Bench has found that if an employee is to be given benefit of pay-scale on completion of 9 years of service in higher pay-scale, the pay-scale on the same post cannot be of the same pay-scale and as such, this Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has clearly laid down the law.
Learned counsel further submitted that the perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) takes note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) and the judgment passed in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Karan Singh (supra).
Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra), the Division Bench had specifically recorded a finding that persons who were appointed as Malaria Surveillance Worker/Multi Purpose Health Worker, were entitled to the selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service in the pay- scale of Rs.1690-2900/- as claimed by the employees and the entitlement was also found to be in order as per the circular issued by the State Government dated 25.01.1992.
Learned counsel Mr.Vigyan Shah submitted that, as far as, fact relating to appointment of the writ petitioners are concerned, the appointments to such employees were granted by (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (13 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] the employer and at no point of time, such employees were treated as ad-hoc or temporary employees.
Learned counsel has referred to document filed in Annexure R/A along with counter-affidavit whereby the re- designation of different posts has been made in the Rules of 1965.
Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards serial No.15 where different posts- Field Worker (Male), Superior Field Worker (Male), Cholera Worker, Basic Health Worker/Malaria, Surveillance Worker, Insect Collector & Vaccinator all has been re-designated as 'Health Worker (Male)'.
Learned counsel submitted that the order of re- designation was in the statutory rules as per Rules of 1965 and as such, it cannot be said that the post of Health Worker (Male) was inserted first time by way of amendment in the year 1992.
Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government introduced the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay- Scales) Rules, 1989 and by notification dated 18.02.1993, the pay-scale of Field Worker was revised from '700-865' to '800- 1250'.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards notification dated 21.12.1993 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan whereby selection grade on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) was revised and the first selection grade on completion of 9 years of service was '975-1270' and second selection grade on completion of 18 years of service was '975-1720' and third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service was '1200-2050'.
Learned counsel submitted that the said notification was the subject matter of consideration by the Division Bench in (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (14 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court when found Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) was given first selection grade and second selection grade on completion of 9 and 18 years of service in the pay-scale of 950- 1200, the said act of the State was not found to be in consonance with the circular dated 25.01.1992.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the service book prepared of one employee - Heera Lal and submitted that when the petitioner-Heera Lal was re- designated on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker, he was fixed on the pay-scale of 975-1720 and on the same day he was granted benefit of selection scale as per the order dated 25.01.1992 on completion of 9 years of service in pay-scale of 975-1720.
Learned counsel submitted that the bare perusal of the service book reveals that no benefit was conferred on the writ petitioners on completion of 9 years of service and on 18 years of service also the same pay-scale was prescribed and as such, employee has been deprived from getting the benefit of selection scale.
Learned counsel submitted that once the writ petitioners have been absorbed/re-designated their past service cannot be wiped out for the purpose of considering the grant of selection scale.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the order dated 25.07.2017 was passed on the basis of the statement given by the counsel for the (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (15 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] State that case was squarely covered by the Govind Dan Charan (supra).
This Court finds that in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has taken into account the fact of granting the same pay- scale to the employees who were absorbed or appointed as Multi Purpose Heath Worker and as such, they were not granted any benefit of their previous service and as such, the Division Bench found that the employee concerned was entitled for the benefit of selection scale as per the circular dated 25.01.1992.
This Court finds that the distinction which is sought to be made before this Court by making an averment that the facts in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) were different and he was not granted any benefit on his appointment as Multi Purpose Health Worker, and the case of the present petitioners are distinguished by the counsel for the State, suffice it to say by this Court that, as far as, grievance of the writ petitioners in the writ petition was concerned, the same was with regard to not granting them the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service as they were fixed on the same pay-scale and as such, this Court has rightly came to conclusion that the case of the writ petitioners was liable to be governed by the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).
The submission of learned counsel for the review petitioners that the issue of counting ad-hoc temporary service for the purpose of selection scale is no more res-integra in view of the Jagdish Naraian Chaturvedi (supra) and Surendra Mohnot (supra).
This Court finds that the judgment of the Apex Court as well as judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Karan Singh (supra), the Division Bench in (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (16 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has taken into consideration the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench and found that the employee cannot be deprived to get benefit of selection scale on completion of 9 years of service by putting him in the same pay-scale.
The submission of learned counsel for the review petitioners that the amendment has been made in the Service Rule of 1992 and since the petitioners have been absorbed/re- designated and as such, they lost their past service for the purpose of pay-scale, suffice it to say by this Court that if the writ petitioners have been re-designated as per the order of the State Government, it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government to say that the services rendered by such employee in the previous capacity as Field Worker, Superior Field Worker and Cholera Worker will be wiped out.
The factum of appointment of the writ petitioners has never been challenged by the State except by filing of the writ petition and making an averment that such employee was only on ad-hoc basis, its too late in the day to say that when the employer has put sufficient number of employees in the service for benefit of pay-scale, the employer questions the employment to be given to these employees.
The submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners the decision which has been given by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Bhiya Ram Vishnoi (supra) and the review petition filed thereof is a subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench, suffice it to say by this Court that the issue in respect of present controversy since has already been resolved by the Division Bench in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra), this (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) (17 of 17) [WRW-146/2018] Court further finds that the judgment in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has been upheld by the Apex Court and further the review petition filed before the Apex Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) has also been dismissed.
This Court finds that the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2017 does not require to be recalled and accordingly, the present review petitions are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed separately in each connected petition.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J Himanshu Soni/Parul (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:33:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)