Sonia Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14191 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14191 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sonia Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17671/2022 Kishan Chandra Jeengar S/o Shri Ram Prasad Jeengar, Aged About 38 Years, 71-D, Charbhuja Nagar, Behind Chandralock Cinema Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17802/2022 Ankita Agrawal D/o Shri Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gh-4, Housing Board Kumbha Nagar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18024/2022 Sonia Sharma D/o Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Inside Usta Gate, Near Mahalaxmi Temple, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18175/2022 Shiv Shankar Upadhyay S/o Shri Chhotu Ram Upadhyay, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Durga Mandir, Khajuwala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

(2 of 4) [CW-17671/2022]

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4913/2022 Gopi Chand S/o Jugata Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village 8 Mld(A), Post 7 Mld, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Nodal Officer (Experience Certificate) Cum Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar.

5. The Development Officer Cum Programme Officer (Egc), Panchayat Samiti Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.

Mr. Manish Patel.

Mr. Pawan Singh.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay & Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 02/12/2022

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised

in the present writ petitions is similar to Tarun Songara v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15127/2022 & other

connected matters, decided on 29.11.2022, wherein, similar

petitions have been allowed by the Court and, therefore,

petitioners are also entitled to similar relief.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the

said submission.

(3 of 4) [CW-17671/2022]

In the case of Tarun Songara (supra), this Court inter alia

came to the following conclusion:-

"This Court in the case of Manakram (supra), while dealing with the said aspect, inter alia came to the following conclusion:-

"A look at the experience certificates filed as Annex.-3 with the contempt petition reveals that the respondents have deducted the 'period of leave without pay' from the period of experience. The notification dated 23.2.2012 issued by the respondents dealing with the period of absence provided for adjustment of leave towards period of absence towards available casual leave and grant of leave without pay for the rest of the period.

This Court in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra) has categorically laid down that if the leave is sanctioned one, then during that period too the relationship of master and servant is maintained and the period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service.

In view thereof, the exclusion of period by the respondents from grant of experience certificates appears to be contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

Reliance placed by the respondents on the circular dated 26.12.2012 providing for non- consideration of period of absence for the purpose of experience, reads as under:- "8- lafonk dkfeZdksa dks vuqer vkdfLed vodk"k ds vykok vuqifLFkfr vof/k dks vuqHko dh vof/k esa "kkfey ugha fd;k tkosA"

The said instruction deals with 'period of absence' and not with a 'period of sanctioned leave' and therefore, the said circular also has no application to the present case.

In view of the discussion here-in-above, it is apparent that the certificates (Annex.3) issued by the respondents are not in accord with the direction dated 3.5.2013 and the law laid down by this Court."

The Court after referring to the judgment in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 186 came to the conclusion that if the leave is sanctioned, the said period cannot be excluded from the period of continuous service and after referring to the Circular dated 26.12.2012, came to the conclusion that the said Circular deals with 'period of absence' and not with the 'period of sanctioned leave' and directed that

(4 of 4) [CW-17671/2022]

the period of sanctioned leave is required to be included in the period of experience certificate.

In view of the above, the action of the respondents in denying to include the period of sanctioned leave for the purpose of experience and thereafter non-issuance of certificate till 18.4.2013, cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondent - Chief Executive Officer is directed to issue requisite experience certificates to the petitioners for the period till 18.4.2013 after including the 'period of sanctioned leave' for the purpose of experience.

It is made clear that the period, during which, the petitioners remained absent and which has not been sanctioned, need not be included in the experience of the petitioners.

The requisite certificate be issued to the petitioners within a period of ten days from today. On certificate being issued, the petitioners would be entitled to utilize the same for the purpose of document verification pursuant to the exercise initiated by the respondents by Circular dated 7.9.2022."

In view of the submissions made, the petitions filed by the

petitioners are allowed with similar directions as given in the case

of Tarun Songara (supra).

It is made clear that on issuance of the certificate to the

petitioners as directed above, the petitioners would be entitled to

utilize the same only at Zila Parishads where they have applied

and posts as of today are still vacant in their category.