Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State & Ors vs Surendra Kumar Sangwan & Anr on 6 July, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 279 / 2006
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Cooperative
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan,
Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
3. The Liquidator, Sri Ganganagar Cooperative Oil Seeds
Processing Mills Ltd., Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Surendra Kumar Sangwan son of Shri Vijay Pal Singh,
resident of Ward no.1, Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Ramesh Chander Pandey son of Shri Shyam Nath Pandey,
resident of Ward no.1, Mandi Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.L.Thakur, Additional Advocate General
with Mr.Rishab Tayal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.S.Chundawat
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 06/07/2017
1. The principle ground to lay a challenge to the impugned decision dated 15.9.2005 is ground-B in the appeal. It reads as under:-
"B. That the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioners should have been treated as surplus employees of the Mill and their candidature should have been considered by the Bureau of Public Enterprises alongwith other employees of the Mills. It is pertinent to submit here (2 of 3) [SAW-279/2006] that other employees of the Mills were not working with the official liquidator whereas the petitioners were working and as such these were two separate classes, hence, it was not needed to give same treatment to both these classes. The petitioners have taken advantage of working with the office of the liquidator and as such they were retained there. In such circumstances, they have taken an advantage but others were not getting such advantage."
2. The argument is preposterous.
3. The facts noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 15.9.2005 are not in dispute.
4. By an order the Government of Rajasthan ordered closure of Sri Ganganagar Cooperative Oil Seeds Processing Mills Limited. The respondents were the employees of the Mill. The first respondent was holding the post of a Commercial Manager. The second respondent was working as a Shift Incharge. By an order dated 6.9.1990 the Government of Rajasthan constituted a Committee for absorption of the surplus employees of various Government Public Enterprises in other services. A decision was taken for absorption of surplus employees of various State Public Enterprises and notwithstanding the employees of the Cooperative Mill not being employees of State Enterprises a decision was taken by the Department of Cooperative that employees of the Mill be also treated as surplus employees eligible for redeployment or absorption either under the State or a Public Enterprise established by the State.
5. The employees of the Mill were absorbed in other Public Enterprises and not the respondents. They were not at fault. The Official Liquidator of the Mill retained them as he needed help for purposes of the liquidation of the Mill.
(3 of 3) [SAW-279/2006]
6. Before the learned Single Judge the argument was as per ground-B pleaded hereinabove that those who were retained by the Official Liquidator became distinct employees of the Mill vis- a-vis those whose services were not utilized by the Liquidator.
7. Now, the respondents had no say in the matter. They never requested to be retained by the Liquidator. The Liquidator of the Mill retained their services.
8. All employees of the Mill formed a homogeneous class and the criteria on which the appellants want to divide the homogeneous class into two is arbitrary and unreasonable.
9. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider respondents absorption in a Public Enterprise in the State of Rajasthan or in the Cooperative Institution controlled and administered by the Government of Rajasthan cannot be faulted with.
10. The writ appeal is dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Parmar