Kapil Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5441 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13190/2017 Kapil Sharma S/o Dinesh Chandra Sharma, R/o 2-K-34, Housing Board, Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of Medical and Health Department and Mission Director Nati, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

2. Additional Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, Govt of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. Secretary Finance Department, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.

4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Banswara.

5. Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer, Banswara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Sanwalot For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vrinda Samdani for Ms. Vandana Bhansali

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

12/04/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in

question rests decided by the judgment passed by this Court in

the case of Hemlata Dhadhich & Ors. Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.376/2015),

decided on 19.07.2015.

Counsel for the respondents does not refute the said

submission.

In the case of Hemlata Dadhich (supra) while relying upon

the earlier judgments passed in Anand Purohit & Ors. Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.8988/2014), it

was observed as under:

                                                                                (2 of 2)                [CW-13190/2017]


                                                   "6. The      petitioners  herein    have   been

appointed as Data Entry Operators in a scheme of NRHM and are aggrieved by non- compliance of the terms of the agreement which provides for 10% increment after appraisal of work. This Court in Anand Purohit's case came to hold that the State is required to act fairly and if the action of the employer-State which is unjust, illegal, arbitrary or unreasoned and where public element is involved, such action would certainly be open to judicial review, even when contracts are involved. It was held in Anand Purohit's case (supra) as under:-

"Resultantly the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for increments as per Clause 15 of the agreements and to revise the remuneration of the petitioners as has been done vide order dated 10.12.2012 so as to bring them in parity with other contractual employees. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. After the remuneration is re-fixed and increments, if any, are due, the arrears be released within a period of three months thereafter, failing which the amounts payable will carry an interest of 6% from the date due till date of disbursement."

7. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of Anand Purohit's case, the only difference being that petitioners therein came to be appointed on the post of Accountants, whereas the petitioners herein have been appointed as Data Entry Operators. The agreements entered into are identical."

In view of the ratio as laid down in Hemlata Dadhich's

case (supra), the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the

above observations made in Hemlata Dadhich's case (supra).

(REKHA BORANA),J

101-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)