Rajasthan High Court
Ram Chandra Jat vs State Of Raj And Ors on 30 November, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 397/2009
Ram Chandra Jat S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram Jat, Vill. Kushumdeshar
Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Co-
Operative Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar Co-Operative Dept., Nehru Sahkar Bhawan,
Jaipur.
4. The Officer Liquidator Shriganganagar Cotton Complex
Ltd., Shriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan with
Mr. Naved Rafiq
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG
with Mr. Dron Yadav
Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini (for
respondent No.3)
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
30/11/2021
The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as an
Operator in Shriganganagar Cotton Complex Limited as a
temporary labour in the year 1996. In the year 2002, due to some
administrative reasons, the Cotton Complex Ltd. was closed and
an Official Liquidator was appointed.
In the circumstances, the employees of the Cotton Complex
Ltd. were declared surplus and they were directed to be deputed
in the other Government Institutions. Vide order dated
(2 of 4) [CW-397/2009]
06.10.2003, some of the employees were deputed in Panchayati
Rat Department, but the petitioner was not deputed and
therefore, he preferred a revision petition before the Minister of
the Department under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Cooperative
Societies Act, 2001.
The revision petition was allowed vide order dated
17.10.2006 and the petitioner was directed to be deputed with
some Government Department.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the
order dated 17.10.2006, although the directions were issued but
he was not deputed and the Panchayati Raj Department
specifically refused on the pretext that the petitioner is an
employee of the Cooperative Department and therefore,
appropriate action ought to be taken by the Cooperative
Department.
Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner
on 06.01.2009 praying for the compliance of the order dated
17.10.2006.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed both by the
Cooperative Department as well as the Panchayati Raj
Department. It has been stated by the Cooperative Department
that the petitioner was engaged as a temporary labour in the year
1996 and he remained mostly absent from his duties during his
complete tenure of service. During the complete period of January
1998 to June 1998, he worked for a period of 34 days only. In the
month of June 1998, he remained completely absent from his
duties without information and therefore, his name was removed
from the muster roll on 17.06.1998.
(3 of 4) [CW-397/2009]
It has also been averred that the industrial unit closed down
in the year 2000 itself and the complete Cotton Complex was put
under liquidation in the year 2005. On the date of closure of the
Cotton Complex, the petitioner was not an employee of the
Industrial Unit as he had been removed from the muster roll on
17.06.1998 itself.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
It is clear on record that the petitioner's name was removed
from the muster roll on 17.06.1998 and aggrieved against the
same he filed the revision petition in the year 2006. Even after the
revision petition being allowed on 17.10.2006, the petitioner kept
waiting for the orders to be complied with and filed the present
writ petition on 17.01.2009. There is no explanation or any
reasonable cause for filing of the present writ petition after a delay
of almost three years.
Although learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on
record the internal communications of the Departments pertaining
to the fact of the consideration and refusal of the petitioner to be
appointed on deputation with the concerned departments. But, the
internal communications of the Department cannot in any way
help the petitioner so as to extend the period of reasonable
limitation to file the present petition.
It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the petitioner
had worked only for a small span with the Cotton Complex Ltd.
and that too closed in the year 2000 itself. So far as the directions
of the State Government dated 06.10.2003(Annexure-1) are
concerned, it was also with the stipulation that the employees
(4 of 4) [CW-397/2009]
were to be appointed on deputation for a maximum period of one
year.
The present petition has been filed in the year 2009 and
there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner till date.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Sanjeevi Naidu Etc. Vs.
State of Madras & Anr. [1970 AIR 1102].
The petitioner has argued that the orders passed by a
Minister in conduct of its General Rules of Business are perfectly
valid and deserves to be acted upon.
I have gone through the judgment as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
So far as the case of A. Sanjeevi Naidu is concerned, the
issue therein was whether the functions under the Motor Vehicles
Act can be allocated by the Governor to the Transport Minister
under "the Rules" and the Secretary of that Ministry can be validly
authorised under Rule 23-A to take action under Section 68(C) of
the Act.
The same can in no manner be said to apply to the facts of
the present matter as the same being related to different subject
matter and on different footings.
In view of the above observations, this Court does not find
any ground for interference in the matter, at this belated stage.
The present writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
AARZOO ARORA/101
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
