Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kailash Chand Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 13 October, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16519 / 2016
Kailash Chand Sharma S/o (late) Shri Sitaram Sharma, Aged
About 58 Years, Village Post Sewa Via Dudu, District Jaipur (raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu,
District Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Adv. & Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishnaveer Singh, Adv. for Mr. Aniroodh Mathur, Adv.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Order 13/10/2017 The petitioner is working since 12.09.1996 on the post of Assistant Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Sunadiya, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu with the consolidated wages of Rs.850 per month.
Counsel submits that the decision was taken by the State Government to consider such of the employees who are working as Assistant Secretary for absorption in terms of cricular dt.14.11.2000 issued by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Department (2 of 5) [CW-16519/2016] and sent to all the Zila Parishads to carry out the instructions of the State Government.
The complaint of the petitioner is that despite there being a circular issued by the Govt. dt.14.11.2000 directing all the Zila Parishads to consider candidature of such Assistant Secretaries for their absorption on fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility but no action has been taken by the authorities and that has been compelled to approach this Court by way of filing of instant writ petition. The extract of the circular dt.14.11.2000 being relevant is quoted ad infra:-
jktLFkku ljdkj iapk;rh jkt foHkkx Øekad% ,Q 28¼3½ ijkfo@iz%2@vf/k-d-l@99@4136 14 uoEcj 2000 vfr- eq[; dk;Zokgh vf/kdkjh] ftyk ifj"kn] fo"k;%& iapk;r lfefr;ksa ds v/khu iapk;rksa ds pqaxh vf/k'ks"k deZpkfj;ksa ,oe~ lgk;d lfpo dk xzke lsod insu lfpo xzke iapk;r ds in ds fo:} lek;kstu djus ckcr~A mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr jkT; ljdkj us vkids ftys dh iapk;r lfefr;ksa dh xzke iapk;rksa ds layXu izi= esa vafdr lSd.Mjh ijh{kk mRkh.kZ@mPPk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk/kkjh pqxh vf/k'ks"k deZpkfj;ksa ,oe~ lgk;d lfpoksa dks jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 265]266],oe 270 ls 273 ds izko/kkuksa esa f'kfFkyrk iznku djrs gq, xzke lsod insu lfpo xzke iapk;r ds in ij lek;kstu djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA mDr lSd.Mjh mRkh.kZ@mPPk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk/kkjh vf/k'ks"k pqaxh deZpkfj;ksa ,oe~ lgk;d lfpoksa dh] lek;kstu ij fu;qfDr 1200@&izfr ekg ds vk/kkj ij nks o"kZ ds ijhfo{kk dky ij gksxhA budh ofj"Brk dk;Zxzg.k djus dh fnaukd ls ekU; gksxhA d`i;k budk lek;kstu dj fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh dj foHkkx dks 'kh?kz voxr djk, rkfd fu;qfDr fnuakd ls gh xzke lsod insu lfpo ds in l`ftr djkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA lek;kstu djus ls iwoZ ;g lqfuf'pr dj fy;k tkos fd budh U;wure 'kSf{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lSd.Mjh mRkh.kZ@led{k gSA rFkk ;s orZeku esa Hkh xzke iapk;rksa esa cRkkSj pqaxh vf/k'ks"k deZpkjh @lgk;d lfpo ds :i esa (3 of 5) [CW-16519/2016] dk;Z dj jgs gSA U;wure 'kSf{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dk ,oea orZeku esa dk;Zjr jgus dk izek.khdj.k fuf'pr :i ls dj fy;k tkosA mDr dk;Zokgh lokSPp izkFkfedrk ls lEikfnr dh tkosA """"
Counsel further submits that those who are approaching this Court by filing of their respective writ petitions their candidature are being taken care of by the authorities for consideration/absorption and this appears to be very unusual situation that once the view has been expressed by this Court to consider the candidature of such employees for absorption in terms of circular dt.14.11.2000 there appears no reason for each and every employee to approach this Court and filed a writ petition more so when the legal issue has been considered by the Single Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of this court. It is informed that the petitioners are still in service.
One of the order of the ld. Single Judge passed by the main seat at Jodhpur in S.B.C.W.P. Nos.958/2005 & 948/2005 dt.05.05.2008 (Annexure-4) & the operative portion of the said order is reproduced as under:-
"Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of petitioners at par with the similarly situated persons and while taking into consideration the fact that both the petitioners were working on the post of Assistant Secretary on the date of taking decision by the Government for absorption, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if the petitioners are found eligible, they shall be absorbed on the post of Secretary with all (4 of 5) [CW-16519/2016] consequential benefits as granted to similarly situated persons. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for back wages and they shall be entitled to notional benefits only. If the above directions are not complied with within the stipulated period, then the petitioners will be entitled for full back wages."
Before the Main Seat at Jodhpur the ld. Single Judge allowed the writ petition No.959/2005 of the similarly situated persons and Division Bench of this Court dismissed D.B.S.A.W. 1521/2012 alongwith one matter preferred by the State against the order of the ld. Single Judge who allowed the petition of the similarly situated persons.
Reply has been filed by the respondents but there is no justification coming forward as to why the candidature has not been considered for absorption when the similarly situated persons entitled to be considered of the principle laid down by this Court in its judgment dt.05.05.2008 and this Court is of the view that once principles have been laid down, directing the respondents holding that the employees who are covered under the circular dt.14.11.2000 be considered for absorption, there appears no reason for the State Government to strict only to such persons who approached this Court and filed writ petitions but it has to be taken in rem and this Court further observed that all such employees who are similarly situated and working on the post of Assistant Secretaries & fulfill the conditions for their absorption under the circular dt.14.11.2000, the government is under an obligation to consider each of them for absorption and apply in rem and such practice to perforce the person to approach (5 of 5) [CW-16519/2016] and file writ petition for the cause decided by this court cannot be appreciated.
The writ petition succeeds & is hereby allowed. Necessary orders be passed by the respondents in compliance of the order of the Court for absorption in terms of circular dt.14.11.2000 within three months & the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits. No costs.
(AJAY RASTOGI),J.
R.Vaishnav
64.