State Of Rajasthan vs Leeladhar Rajpurohit
2021 Latest Caselaw 8428 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12285/2018

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Inspector General Of Police (HQ), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Leeladhar Rajpurohit S/o Shri Mohan Lal Rajpurohit, Behind Roadway Depot, Purohiton Ka Bas, Indira Colony, Bikaner.

2. Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/03/2021

1. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, at the outset, submits that the issue involved in the

present writ petition is identical to one decided by this Court on

25.03.2021, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Raju Devi

& Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13472/2018).

2. In the State of Rajasthan Vs. Raju Devi Rajpurohit, this

Court has held as under:

"20. In considered opinion of this Court, so far as the

rights and fate of the employee are concerned, the

same are governed by the adjudication made in his

favour, vide judgment dated 26.05.1995.

                                         (2 of 5)                    [CW-12285/2018]


21.   A    perusal       of    the     order       dated        26.05.1995

reproduced above leaves no manner of doubt that

this Court had issued direction to the State to

consider his case for regularization.

22. It is noteworthy that the judgment in

employee's case was delivered much before the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case

of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in

[(2006) 4 SCC 1].

23. True it is, that, in the judgment relied upon by

the State namely State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya

Lal and Ors. the judgment passed by this Court in

Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara (supra)

have been held to be not a good law, but then, if the

facts noticed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the

case of Daya Lal (supra) are examine carefully, it

clearly transpires that the judgment under challenge

before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was passed by

this Court in the year 2011 relying upon the

judgment in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan

Sangh, Banswara (supra); whereas the judgment in

case of employee was passed on the same date,

when this Court had pronounced the judgment in the

case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara

(supra).

24. This being the position and considering to the

fact that judgment dated 26.05.1995 has attained

(3 of 5) [CW-12285/2018]

finality, according to this Court, the State cannot rely

upon the adjudication made in the case of Daya Lal

(supra) which was pronounced about 16 years' after

the adjudication made in employee's favour.

25. That apart, argument vociferously advanced by

Mr. Bissa that this Court had not given any direction

for regularization and thus, the directions given by

the Tribunal are beyond jurisdiction, is factually

incorrect. A perusal of the order dated 26.05.1995

leaves no manner of ambiguity that this Court had

given direction to the State to regularize employee's

services, however as an immediate measure, the

State was directed to place the employee under

minimum of the pay scale, which is available to a

Class IV employee.

26. The State cannot pick a part of the judgment and

take a stand that it would continue to pay the same

amount to the employee till his superannuation. If

stand of the State is accepted, then it would amount

to exploitation rather permitting Begar, which is

prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

27. Furthermore, a perusal of the order dated

17.10.1996 (Annex.R/1/1) clearly depicts that the

post was sanctioned for the employee, albeit subject

to decision of the special appeal filed by the State

against the judgment dated 26.05.1995.

(4 of 5) [CW-12285/2018]

28. Concededly, the intra-Court appeal filed by the

State against the order dated 26.05.1996 had been

dismissed and thus, the condition appended in the

order dated 17.10.1996, while appointing the

employee against a sanctioned post lost its effect.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, the respondent-

employee should be considered to have been

appointed against a sanctioned post.

29. This Court is therefore of the considered view

that there is no error or infirmity in the order dated

12.12.2017 under consideration passed by the

Tribunal.

30. The writ petition therefore fails.

31. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court feels

that the stipulation regarding payment of interest at

the rate of 9% is slightly on a higher side. In the

interest of justice, the same is hereby modified and

the rate of interest is reduced to prevailing rate of

interest i.e. 6% per annum.

32. State is allowed two months' time to make

payment of the amount as per the order of the

Tribunal. The cost is made easy.

33. Stay applications also stand disposed of

accordingly."

3. Following the judgment in the case of State of Raj. & Anr. Vs.

Raju Devi & Anr., the present writ petition is disposed of with the

same terms.

(5 of 5) [CW-12285/2018]

4. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 166-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)