Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meghraj Sadh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7737/2022
Piyush Kumar Badar S/o Shri Vasudeo Badar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o V.p. Shree Balaji District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner (Agriculture), Agriculture
Commissionerate, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture (Extension), Zila
Parishad, Nagaur, District - Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8278/2022
Meghraj Sadh S/o Shri Omprakash Sadh, Aged About 38 Years,
Behind Hanuman Mandir, Poongal Road, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner (Agriculture), Agriculture
Commissionerate, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture (Quality Control),
Government Pesticide Laboratory, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.C. Bishnoi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
17/08/2022
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
seeking a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of
(2 of 3)
appointment orders from the date of giving appointment to
similarly situated persons in the year 2013 and they may be
directed to make the fixation of salary of the petitioners from the
said date including the benefit of seniority as per their merit
position in the original merit list on the post of LDC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical
petitions, pertaining to the same Department and Recruitment,
being Mukesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16922/2019, decided on 6.5.2022 at
Jaipur Bench, the petitions have been accepted and directions
have been issued, therefore, the present writ petitions be also
allowed in light of the said judgment.
Learned counsel for the State made submissions that though
the issue raised is similar to that in the case of Mukesh Kumar
Sharma (supra), however, similar defence as raised in the case of
Mukesh Kumar Sharma (supra) is available to the respondents.
In view of the fact that similar nature dispute already stands
concluded by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench,
wherein, it was inter alia observed and directed as under:-
"12. In view of the discussion made here-in-above,
this writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be
allowed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners were
given appointment in compliance of the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in which
liberty was granted to the respondents to terminate
services of ineligible persons, which although has not
been done by the respondents and such persons are
still working in the Department, that too over & above
to the petitioners who are higher in the merit;
secondly, in view of Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999
interse seniority shall follow the order in the list
(3 of 3)
prepared under Rule 28 & 29 of the Rules, 1999
respectively and admittedly, the respondents have
prepared the fresh select list of the selected candidates
in compliance of the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this court in the matter of Saurabh Kumar
Kothari (supra); thirdly the judgment in the matter of
Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) was passed by the
Division Bench of this Court on 03.02.2016 and it is
not the case of the respondents that the said judgment
ever became subject matter of challenge before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, meaning thereby the said
judgment has already attained finality, then
respondents were duty bound to obey and comply the
directions contained in the judgment passed in the
matter of Saurabh Kumar Kothari (supra) in letter and
spirit but on the contrary the respondents kept the
matter pending for grant of seniority & notional
benefits as per Rules for more than five years with
them and; lastly, the petitioners have participated in
the same selection process and their appointment got
delayed due to negligence of the respondents,
therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefits
of notional fixation i.e. seniority, promotion & pay scale
etc. from the date when persons were appointed in the
same selection process.
13. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to give notional
benefits like seniority and promotion to the petitioners
from the date when the less meritorious persons were
given appointment by the respondents in pursuance to
the advertisement dated 17.05.2011. All the pending
applications stand disposed of."
Consequently, the present writ petitions are also decided in
light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Mukesh
Kumar Sharma (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
60-61-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
