Hemlata Jain vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 14316 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14316 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hemlata Jain vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 6 December, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2365/2010

Hemlata Jain W/o Shri Sanjay Jain, by caste Jain, aged about 40 years, R/o 3/35, Khandu Colony, Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Medical and Medical and Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director, Medical, Health and Welfare Services (IEC), Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Banswara.

4. The District Collector, Banswara.

5. Sanitation Water and Community Health Project through its Director, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC with Ms. Vrinda Samdani

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

06/12/2022

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 15.02.2010 (Annex.-17) whereby the petitioner was

repatriated back to Sanitation Water and Community Health

Project (SWACH) Project (NGO), Banswara from the Department

of Medical and Health Services.

The petitioner is an employee who was originally appointed

with the SWACH as Health Educator in the year 1990.

Subsequently, because of the decision of the State Government to

close down the Project, the employees working with the SWACH

(D.B. SAW/709/2011 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 4) [CW-2365/2010]

were transferred to other Departments. The petitioner being one

of them was, vide order dated 19.05.2007, sent to the Medical

and Health Department as Health Educator for a period of three

years at the first instance. In the year 2010, the petitioner was

sought to be repatriated back to the SWACH Project which was

then run by an NGO. Aggrieved against the said action, the

present writ petition has been preferred. By virtue of interim order

dated 10.03.2010, the petitioner continues to work with the

Medical and Health Department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy is covered by the judgment passed by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Lodha v. State & Ors.;

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1323/1998, decided on 11.09.2014

and affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal

Writ No.149/2015; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dilip Lodha

& Anr., decided on 11.10.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the above submission.

In the case of Dilip Lodha (supra), while relying upon the

earlier two Division Bench judgments passed in the case of

Bhanwar Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.1573/2002, decided on 05.09.2002 and

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.935/2000, decided on 20.01.2011, it was

observed by the Division Bench as under:-

"9. Suffice it to state that all persons whose names were mentioned in the office order dated 30.03.1995 are similarly situated. On closure of the SWACH Project their services were directly to be absorbed by transfer in different departments

(D.B. SAW/709/2011 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 4) [CW-2365/2010]

of the State. The issue concerning rights flowing in favour of said persons stand decided by two Division Bench Judgments as noted hereinabove and thus the impugned decision insofar it concerns Dilip Lodha passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be upheld as the issue has attained finality.

10. As regards Mohammed Ayub, notwithstanding his name not being in the office order dated 30.03.1995 which contains the names of the officers and clerical staff, suffice it to note that undisputedly Mohammed Ayub was also transferred in the SAWCH Project of the State of Rajasthan. His appointment was on 08.08.1989. He was directed to be transferred to the Sahakari Sangh and thus even he would be entitled to the same relief as would be Dilip Lodha."

In Ramesh Chandra's case (supra), the Division Bench held

as under:-

"After going through the facts of the case of Bhanwar Singh Bhati (supra) as well as the reasons given in the said judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants were given appointment on the post of Junior Engineer and their services were transferred to PHED after finding out number of vacancies available with the PHED. When their services were transferred to PHED, then only the appellants could join the services in PHED where they were given posting as well as regular pay scale of Junior Engineer by application of mind by the State authorities and the issue was considered at the highest level of executive in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan as back as in July, 1995 which was attended by representatives of various departments of the Government as well as Tribal Development Secretary under whom the project of SWACH was running. In these circumstances, at this belated stage i.e. even at the time when the writ petitions were filed, the respondents had no right to treat the appellants as not duly appointed employees on the post of Junior Engineer."

(D.B. SAW/709/2011 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 4) [CW-2365/2010]

In view of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned

judgments, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 15.02.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The

respondent authorities are directed to pass an appropriate order

directing for the absorption of the petitioner with the Medical and

Health Department and to regularize her services w.e.f.

28.05.2007, the date she joined Medical and Health Department.

The petitioner would also be entitled to notional benefits of

seniority, continuity of service period etc. for computing her retiral

benefits after she retires on achieving the age of superannuation.