Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Reena Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15145/2022
Reena Sharma D/o Satyanarayan Sharma W/o Jagdish Sharma,
Aged About 38 Years, 3/208, Old Housing Board, Pali (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, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari assistant to
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/12/2022
1. The petitioner has been denied bonus marks by the
respondents for the experience gained by her.
2. Mr. Kumawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered
by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the
case of Tarun Songara Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15127/2022 and other
connected writ petitions) decided on 29.11.2022.
3. Mr. Piyush Bhandari assistant to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents is not
(2 of 4) [CW-15145/2022]
in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. He
further submits that one post has been kept vacant for the
petitioner.
4. In case of Tarun Songara (supra), this Court has observed
thus:
"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 ofexperience, 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 dated3.5.2013 and the law
laid down by this Court.
(3 of 4) [CW-15145/2022]
The Court after referring to the judgment in
the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. v. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009WLC (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
dated26.12.2012, came to the conclusion that the
said Circular deals with 'period of absence' and not
with the 'period of sanctioned leave' and directed
that 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 till18.4.2013,
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."
5. Following the decision aforesaid, the present writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to issue requisite certificate
to the petitioner within two weeks' from today.
(4 of 4) [CW-15145/2022]
6. On certificate being issued, the petitioner shall produce the
same before the respondent No.3 who shall consider the same and
accord appointment to the petitioner if she is otherwise found
eligible.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
106-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
