Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Prakash Saini vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 November, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 370/2020
1. Dr. Kailash Chandra Dagar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About
32 Years, Caste- Jat, R/o Village And Post- Chithwari,
Tehsil- Chomu, District- Jaipur, (Hall Veterinary Officer, At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital Antela, Jaipur, Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Mohit Gupta S/o Nanak Chand Gupta, Aged About 31
Years, Caste- Gupta, R/o H.no. B-239, Budh-Vihar, Alwar,
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Govt. Veterinary Mobile Unit,
Rajgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan).
3. Dr. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Har Prasad Solanki, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Village-Gupal-Ka-Nagla, Tehsil- Bharatpur,
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Mobile Unit, Hadbai,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 502/2020
1. Gaurav Sharma S/o Shri Gautam Sharma, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Bhanot Bhawan, Sabzi Bazar, Sri- Ganganagar.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital
Daulatpura, Sri-Ganganagar, Rajasthan).
2. Jitendra Singh Gaur S/o Shri Mohan Singh Gaur, Aged
About 34 Years, By Caste Gaur, R/o Indira Colony,
Nainwan Road, Gandhi Gram Road, Bundi (Raj.). At
Present Posted At Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Polyclinic,
Bundi.
3. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Jat, R/o V/p Kalotra Via Babai Teh. Khetri
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). At Present Posted Veterinary
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(2 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Madhogarh, District
Jhunjhunu.
4. Pawan Kumar Saharan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Saharan,
Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Vpo Bhuwari Teh.
Rajgarh District Churu (Raj.) At Present Veterinary Officer,
District Mobile Veterinary Unit Churu-I, District Churu.
5. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Yadav,
Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Yadav, R/o Nandiwali
Dhani, W. No. 4 Kacholiya Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present
Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Munged, District
Dungarpur.
6. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Lal Yadav, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Dhani Baiji-Wali, Village- Anantpura, Post-
Divrala Via Ajitgarh, Tehsil- Shri Madhopur, District- Sikar,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Veterinary Hospital
Palari, Tehsil- Viratnagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Imtiyaj Khan S/o Shri Manwar Khan, Aged About 33
Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Village Aslu, Post Lakhsu
District Churu (Raj.). At Present Veterinary Officer,
Veterinary Hospital, Bhamsi, District Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Jaipur, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Addl. Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 711/2020
1. Chandra Prakash Saini S/o Shri Matadeen Saini, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Behind Iti College, Sardar Patel
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(3 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Nagar, Bikaner. Currently Posted At Government
Veterinary Hospital, Ismailpur, Alwar.
2. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar
Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Nayawas, Post
Brahmbad, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. Currently
Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital, Naglatula,
Bharatpur.
3. Gopal Swami S/o Puran Mal Swami, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Village Bheslana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.
Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital,
Datil, Jaipur.
4. Mubin Khan S/o Jormal Khan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Shekhpur, Post Bahadurpur, Tehsil Kishangarhbas,
Alwar. Currently Posted At Government Veterinary
Hospital, Mubarikpur, Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance
Department, Jaipur, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Secretary.
8. Vikram Singh Yadav S/o Mohar Singh Yadav, Aged About
33 Years, Jaitpur, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali. Currently
Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital, Ratanpura,
Alwar.
9. Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Gopal Ram Sharma, Aged About
34 Years, 46, Tirupati Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur.
Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital,
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(4 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Haldina Alwar.
10. Ratan Singh S/o Nand Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Jonaicha Kala, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar. Currently
Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital, Majara,
Neemrana.
11. Lalit Kumar Gaur S/o Shiv Lahari Gaur, Aged About 37
Years, Garh Himmat Singh, Dausa. Currently Posted At
Government Veterinary Hospital, Talchiri, Dausa.
12. Tirupati Sharma S/o Narendra Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, 36, Gulab Nagar, Railway Station,
Sanganer, Jaipur. Currently Posted At Government
Veterinary Hospital, Bilwa, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 7/2021
1. Dr. Aniil Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Babu Lal Jangid, Aged
About 37 Years, B/c Jangid, R/o 37 Govind Nagar, Sikar
Road, Harmada, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Office At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Aaloli,
District - Ajmer, Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Krishan Pratap Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh Jadaun,
Aged About 34 Years, B/c Jadaun, R/o 410 Rajendra
Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. Vet. Hospital, Bahala, District Alwar Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Personnel And Training
(Gr.ii), Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 28/2021
1. Dinesh Choudhary S/o Shri Babu Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Village Kharadi, Tehsil Jaitaran,
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(5 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
District Pali. (Hall Veterinary Office At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital, Ransigaon, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur).
2. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Man Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o H. No. C-78, Sainik Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
(Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital,
Wahidpura, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.)
3. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Shishupal Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post- Dabri, Baloda, Tehsil-
Navalgarh, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Devgaon-
Nua, District- Jhunjhunu).
4. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Prahalad Singh, Aged About 31
Years, Caste- Jat, R/o Vill. And Post- Patusari District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt.
Veterinary Hospital, Kari, Nawalgarh, District- Jhunjhunu).
5. Maninder Singh S/o Shri Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village- Dunwas, Post- Mundawar, District-
Alwar. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Polyclinic, Alwar, Rajasthan).
6. Manoj Kumar Mahla S/o Shri Deendayal Mahla, Aged
About 34 Years, Caste- Jat, R/o Village- Alafsar, Post
Hirna, Tehsil- Fatehpur, District- Sikar, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Beswa,
District- Sikar).
7. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Asoo Singh Shekhawat, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o H. No. 402, Kailashpuri, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital, Bhadaria, District- Jaisalmer).
8. Satveer Singh S/o Shri Manfool Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Caste- Khati, R/o Vill. And Post- Lalana-Baas
Utradha, Tehsil- Nohar, District- Hanumangarh. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Jasana,
District- Hanumangarh).
9. Rinku Lal Gupta S/o Shri Chhail Bihari Gupta, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Behind Agarwal Dharmsala, Karoli,
Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary
Hospital, Madhopur, Jaipur, Rajasthan).
10. Anil Kumar Soni S/o Shri Manohar Lal Soni, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Village And Post- Narhar, Tehsil- Chirawa,
District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. District Mobile Unit No. 3, Buhana, District-
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(6 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan).
11. Shivraj Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o D-150 Indra Colony, Newai, District-
Tonk, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. District
Mobile Unit-I, Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan).
12. Utkarsh S/o Shri Randhir Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/
o Village And Post- Dhadhoi Kalan, Tehsil- Buhana,
District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Ghardana, District- Jhunjhunu).
13. Jyoti Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 33 Years, Caste- Brahmin, R/o Sodiya
Mohalla, Baswa, Tehsil- Lalsoth, District- Dausa. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Didwana,
Lalsoth, District- Dausa, Rajasthan).
14. Kamal Kishore S/o Shri Suresh Chandra, Aged About 35
Years, Caste- Mali, R/o Govt. Servant Colony, I.o.c. Road,
Mod Bhatta, District- Pali, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital Raipur, District- Pali).
15. Umakant Tyagi S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 35
Years, Caste- Tyagi, R/o Village And Post- Doobra, Tehsil
And District- Dholpur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer,
District Mobile Unit, Badi, District- Dholpur).
16. Ganpat Ram Saini S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged
About 34 Years, Caste- Saini, R/o Dhani Novoda, Post
Gwala, Tehsil Nim-Ka-Thana, District- Sikar. (Hall
Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital Dantari, District-
Sirohi, Rajasthan).
17. Hansram Meena S/o Bati Lal Meena, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Dharadi, District- Karoli, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Veterinary Hospital Sodala Bandikui,
District- Dausa).
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principle Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Training (Gr.- Ii) Government Of Rajasthan, State
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(7 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal,
Husbandry, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
6. Shailendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Sangam Bhawan Parisar, Baswa Road,
Bandi-Kui, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Sakat, District
Alwar).
7. Sardar Singh Jat S/o Shri Geegaram, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Dhani Nabori- Kalyanpura, Post- Jairampur,
Tehsil- Sri Madhopur, District- Sikar. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Bhojpur-Khandekar,
District- Sikar).
8. Yogeswh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Ganga Mandir
Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. District Mobile Unit, Bharatpur, Rajasthan).
9. Mohd. Abdul Khalid S/o Shri Abdul Rahoof Khan, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o C-100, Waqf Nagar, Dadabari, Kota.
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At District Mobile Unit, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan).
10. Rajesh Kumar Kasera S/o Shri Balmukund Kasera, Aged
About 34 Years, Caste- Kasera, R/o E-4-A Old Jawahar
Nagar, Kota. (Hall District Mobile Unit, Pipalda, Kota).
11. Amit Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o P. No. 64 Salasar Vatika, 11Th
Road, Niwaru Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary
Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Bhadwa, Jaipur,
Rajasthan).
12. Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Caste- Patel, R/o Station Road, Bhinay, Tehsil-
Bhinay, District- Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer
At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Padanga District- Ajmer).
13. Dinesh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Sita Ram Saini, Aged About
39 Years, Caste- Saini, R/o Ward No. 1, Sri-Madhopur,
District- Sikar, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer, District
Mobile Unit, Laxmangarh, District- Sikar).
14. Manoj Nen S/o Shri Dev Karan Nen, Aged About 33 Years,
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(8 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
R/o V.p.o. Sirsali, District- Churu. (Hall Veterinary Officer,
At Veterinary Hospital Lohsana, District- Churu)
15. Idris Khan S/o Nawab Ali, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward
No. 44 Mohalla Idgar, District- Churu, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Polyclinic, Churu).
16. Gajraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o V.p.o. Nevari, District- Jhunjhunu.
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Hospital Pachalangi,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 47/2021
Dr. Babu Lal Vishnoi S/o Shri Hema Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 34
Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Sanked, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At
Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Mokhatra, District - Jalore,
Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Personnel And Training
(Gr. Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 48/2021
1. Rajendra Prasad, Vill. And Post Muklawa, Tehsil Raisingh
Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (Hall
Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Raisingh
Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan).
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Prem Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
Caste Rajput, R/o Village And Post Bhagega, Tehsil Neem
Ka Thanka, District Sikar, Rajasthan (Hall Veterinary
Officer, At Govt. Vet. Hospital, Abhawas, Sri Madhopur,
District Sikar Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(9 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
3. Abdul Kadir Khan S/o Abdul Vahid Khan, Aged About 31
Years, Caste Muslim, R/o Near Laddha Hospita,
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, (Hall Veterinary Officer,
At Govt. Vet. Hospital, Suhagpura, District Pratapgarh
Rajasthan).
4. Shadab Ahmed Khan S/o Iqubal Ahmed Khan, Aged
About 38 Years, Caste Muslim, R/o 23/195, Mohammadia
Colony, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara, (Hall Veterinary Officer,
At Govt. Vet. Hospital, Danthal District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan).
5. Parveen Kumar S/o Rajvir Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
Faujawali Road, Ramnagar, Kotputli, Jaipur Rajasthan,
(Hall Veterinary Officer, At Govt. Vet. Hospital, Kot-Kasim,
District Alwar Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, State Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Personnel And Training
(Gr. Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Additional Director, Department Of Animal
Husbandry, Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 207/2021
1. Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai S/o Mohd. Sharif Zai, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 71 Jk Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
2. Ramakant Soni S/o Shri Chothmal Soni, Aged About 31
Years, R/o New Colony Near Sarla Birla Kalyan Mandap
Saikripa Society Kuchaman City, Rajasthan.
3. Sureshchand Yadav S/o Shri Babulal Yadav, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Village And Post - Achrol, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village And Post - Bhagera, Tehsil Neem Ka
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(10 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Devi Lal Godara, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Bar Wali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Surendar Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Village Post - Dhikli Jatan, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
7. Dr. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Bheem Sain, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Post Ujj, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
8. Dr. Sarvesh Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Ghanau Teh. Sadalpur, District Churu, Raj.
9. Dr. Heeralal S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village 45F, Post Baringa, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Dr. Vishnu Parashar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kajori Ka Nagla Ward No. 4,
Kherli, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
11. Dr. Naresh Nagar S/o Shri Badri Lal Nagar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o House No. 85, Keshavpura, Sector 4, Kota,
Rajasthan.
12. Dr. Ramesh Beniwal S/o Shri Ran Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ward No. 30, Jhorarpura Bass Bhadra, Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
13. Dr. Dharam Singh S/o Shri Jhabar Singh Dhayal, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Dhani - Mansawali, Village Post
Kotary Dhayalan, Via Ringus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
14. Dr. Lokendra S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Tangla, Post - Chawta Khurd, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 09:06:43 PM)
(11 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma}
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
Mr. Rahul vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr.Mahaveer Bhanwaria
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
Mr. Salman Agha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
Date of pronouncement : 17/11/2021
Judgment reserved on : 11/11/2021
BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Since the controversy involved in all these Special Appeal
(Writs) is identical in nature, hence all these appeals are being
heard and decided by passing this common order.
2. The intra Court D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.502/2020
(Dr. Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) arises out of
the judgment dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single
Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16913/2019 and
rest of the seven Special Appeal (Writs) arise out of the orders
passed by the learned Single Benches on different dates, by
which, all the writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners were
decided in light of Gaurav Sharma (Supra) vide judgment dated
20.01.2020 with the following directions as mentioned in Para
Nos.15 and 16 of the said judgment, which are reproduced as
below:-
"15. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions
are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to
give minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners
(12 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
without any allowances from the date, when the
petitioners filed the writ petition(s).
16. The respondents shall pay the arrears for such
period by 31.03.2020, however, their pay will be
matched with minimum of the pay scale w.e.f.
01.02.2020."
3. While deciding the writ petition, learned Single Bench has
not issued any directions for payment of grant of minimum pay
scale from the date of decision in the matter of State Of Punjab
Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2016) AIR (SC) 5176.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
20.01.2020 and the subsequent orders passed by the learned
Single Bench, these intra court appeals are being filed.
5. The two fold common arguments have been raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are entitled
for getting minimum pay scale on the post of Veterinary Officer
from the date of judgment of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra) i.e.
w.e.f. 26.10.2016. In support of their contention, they have relied
upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt. Uji Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. rendered in D.B.
Special Appeal Writ No.883/2015 decided on 17.04.2018,
wherein, the Court issued directions for grant of minimum and
equal pay scale from the date of decision of Jagjit Singh's case
(Supra). It is further contented on behalf of the appellants that
they are entitled for the benefits of attached dearness allowances
and other allowances. In support of their contentions, they relied
upon the various judgments in the matters of Maharaj Krishan
Bhatt & Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24 and Smt. Uji Devi Vs. State of
(13 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.883/2015 decided on 17.04.2018.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and argued
that the directions issued in the case of Smt.Uji Devi (Supra) for
grant of minimum pay scale cannot be granted from the date of
decision of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra) i.e. from 26.10.2016
because the facts of the cases in hand and Jagjit's cases are
different and the same cannot be applied in the cases in hand.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. On careful perusal of the record, it is clear that there are two
sets of Special Appeals. In one set of appeals, no prayer was
made by the petitioners in the writ petitions filed before the
learned Single Judge for grant of minimum pay scale w.e.f. the
date of decision of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra). The details of the
Special Appeals and the writ Petitions are as under:-
S.No. D.B. SAW No. Appellant(s)/ SBCWP No. Date of SB
respondent(s) judgment
01. 370/2020 Dr. Kailash Chandra 2381/2018 30.01.2020
Dagar & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan
& Ors.
02. 502/2020 Gaurav Sharma & 16913/2019 20.01.2020
Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
03. 711/2020 Chandra Prakash 1604/2020 17.02.2020
Saini & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan
& Ors.
04. 207/2021 Dr. Mohd. Waseem 39/2017 30.01.2020
Khan Zai Vs. State
(14 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
of Rajasthan & Ors.
9. In anther set of D.B. Special Appeals, though the prayer was
made by the petitioners in the writ petitions before the learned
Single Judge for grant of minimum pay scale w.e.f. the date of
decision of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra) but the same was not
claimed while arguing the writ petitions. The details of the Special
Appeals and Writ Petitions are as under:-
S.No. D.B. SAW No. Appellant(s)/ SBCWP No. Date of SB
respondent(s) judgment
01. 7/2021 Dr. Aniil Kumar 9402/2020 19.10.2020
Jangid & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan
& Ors.
02. 28/2021 Dinesh Choudhary 1613/2020 03.02.2020
& Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
03. 47/2021 Dr. Babu LaL Vs. 10194/2020 12.11.2020
State of Rajasthan
& Ors.
04. 48/2021 Dr. Rajendra Prasad 2350/2020 19.02.2020
& Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
10. The batch of the rest of the seven appeals is based on
different impugned orders passed on the basis of the impugned
judgment dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16913/2019 (Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The prayer in the said writ petition is
reproduced herein below:-
"(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature thereof, the respondents No.1 to 6, may kindly be
directed to regularise services of the petitioners on
(15 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
permanent basis on the post of Veterinary Officers, by
taking into account their services rendered on the post
since year 2013 and on the basis of written test passed
by them, conducted by the respondent RPSC and to grant
them benefit of regular pay scale with all admissible
service benefits at part with regular employees.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be restrained
from dispensing with or terminating services of petitioners
from the post of Veterinary Officers and petitioners be
allowed to continue on the said post, with regular pay
scale to the post in light of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors, reported in AIR (SC)
5176, in same terms.
(c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ
petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed in
terms of decision so rendered by this Hon'ble High Court
in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1091/2000 titled Dr.
Abhijit Sutradhar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
decided on 18.04.2002, with the same direction and
petitioners may kindly be paid regular salary in same
manner at par with Veterinary Officers appoinitee of the
year 1998, who are not yet appointed through RPSC in
regular cadre.
(d) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature thereof, the method of selection adopted by the
respondent RPSC for making selection of the Veterinary
Officers against advertisement dated 02.05.2013 only on
the basis of interview alone, may kindly be held to be
unreasonable and illegal, consequently the respondent
RPSC may kindly be directed to recommend names of
petitioners for appointment on the post of Veterinary
Officers, by taking into account their marks scored in the
written test, against the vacancies, left unfilled in the
aforesaid advertisement.
(e) And in alternate, if deemed fit, by an order, writ, order
or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondent
Department of Animal Husbandry, may kindly be directed
to absorb services of petitioners against regular post, by
(16 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
taking into consideration their long services on the post
and on the basis of selection process faced by the
petitioners, against regular post and respondent RPSC
may kindly be directed to recommend their names for
regular absorption, on the ground of passing of written
test conducted by the respondent RPSC.
(f) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioners."
11. While filing the writ petition of Gaurav Sharma, the
petitioners therein claimed for regularization but, while arguing
the matter, the petitioners therein abandoned their relief for
regularization by confining their prayer for grant of amount equal
to minimum pay scale available to the Veterinary Officers. In
support of the aforesaid relief, reliance was placed by them on the
judgment of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra). Para Nos. 54 to 58 of
the said judgment reads as under:
54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an
interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution.
The principle has been expounded through a large
number of judgments rendered by this Court, and
constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is
binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle,
have been summarized by us in paragraph 42
hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
has also been extended to temporary employees
(differently described as work-charge, daily-wage,
casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal
position, relating to temporary employees, has been
summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The
above legal position which has been repeatedly declared,
is being reiterated by us, yet again.
(17 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine
artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee
engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than
another, who performs the same duties and
responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an
action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled
to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He
does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the
cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self
worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that
his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not
accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act
of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation.
56. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:
Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just
and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in
particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a
minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal
value without distinction of any kind, in particular women
being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those
enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in
accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his
employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no
considerations other than those of seniority and
competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working
hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as
(18 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
remuneration for public holidays." India is a signatory to
the above covenant, having ratified the same on
10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation,
in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred
to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear
and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee
- whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference
to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage
employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the
sole factor that requires our determination is, whether
the concerned employees (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were
being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require
the application of the parameters of the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in
paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant
aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us
to record the factual position. We say so, because it was
fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing
the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in
the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against
posts which were also available in the regular
cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during
the course of their employment, the concerned
temporary employees were being randomly deputed to
discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point
in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise,
regular employees holding substantive posts, were also
posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned
to temporary employees, from time to time. There is,
therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and
responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees
in the present set of appeals, were the same as were
being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case
(19 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not
possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the
State, that any of the temporary employees would not be
entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles
summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There
can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary
employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim
wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of
regularly engaged Government employees, holding the
same post.
58. In view of the position expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding,
that all the concerned temporary employees, in the
present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages
at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade,
in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular
employees, holding the same post.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants raised one more
contention regarding grant of minimum pay scale from the date of
decision of Jagjit Singh's case i.e. 26.10.2016. In support of
their said contention, the petitioners placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Uji Devi (Supra),
wherein, the Court issued directions that the appellants were
entitled for getting the minimum of the pay scale w.e.f. the date of
decision of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra). The operative part of the
judgment of Smt. Uji Devi (Supra) is reproduced as under:-
"In view of aforesaid discussion and considering
the above judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant
appeal is hereby allowed and the orders impugned dated
05.08.2015 passed by learned Singh Judge in Review
Petition No.106/2014 and the order dated 07.01.2014
passed in SBCWP NO.895/2013 whereby the learned
Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, are hereby
(20 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
quashed and set aside qua the appellant and the
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
appellant/writ petitioner for regularisation in accordance
with law and grant regular minimum of the pay scale at
least from the date of judgment of Apex Court in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra). The
arrears may be given to the appellant/writ petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of receipt
copy of this judgment.
13. After carefully examined the aforesaid directions passed in
the case of Smt. Uji Devi (Supra), we find that no parity can be
claimed by the appellants herein because in the case of Smt. Uji
Devi (Supra), the petitioners/appellants therein submitted the
writ petition in the year 2015 i.e. much prior to the decision of
Jagjit Singh's case (Supra), while the petitioners/appellants
herein approached this court in the year 2017 and in the
subsequent years and so making difference between the different
set of petitions, the learned Single Bench has rightly passed the
impugned orders for not granting benefit of minimum pay scale to
them w.e.f. the date of decision of Jagjit Singh's case (Supra)
and the writ petition of Gaurav Sharma and others was decided on
20.01.2020 with the directions as stated above.
14. From the perusal of the record it is clear that no such prayer
was made in the writ petition filed by Gaurav Sharma & Ors. for
getting minimum pay scale from the date of decision of Jagjit
Singh's case (Supra) and it is the settled principle of law that the
Court cannot grant any such relief which is not claimed in the writ
petition.
15. Later on, on the subsequent dates, the other Writ Petition
Nos.39/2017, 2381/2018, 1604/2020, 1613/2020, 9402/2020,
10194/2020 and 2350/2020 were decided at the request of the
(21 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Bench that
the controversy involved in these matters is squarely covered by
the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2020 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.16913/2019 (Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) and accordingly, the similar directions given in
Para Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment were issued.
16. While getting the aforesaid directions, (Para Nos.15 & 16),
no other arguments were raised before the learned Single Judge in
those Writ Petitions for claiming grant of minimum pay scale w.e.f.
the date of Jagjit Singh's case and further, no other argument
was raised before the learned Single Judge for grant of other
allowances including dearness allowance.
17. Hence, the appellants are estopped now to challenge the
impugned orders passed by the learned Single Benches because
the orders have been passed by the learned Single Benches on the
basis of consent of the appellants. The judgments relied upon by
them in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder Singh
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 587, Maharaj Krishan Bhatt &
Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (Supra) do
not support the contentions raised by the appellants in these
appeals and the same are distinguishable looking to the peculiar
facts of the present appeals.
18. As a result of the above discussion made hereinabove, all
these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
19. Other pending applications are also stands disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
46-53Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
