Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankar Lal Joshi vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 4) [CW-10621/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10621/2021
1. Shankar Lal Joshi S/o Kanni Ram, Aged About 73 Years,
R/o Gram Utarwada, Post Mahuda, Tehsil Badi Sadri,
District Chittorgarh.
2. Bheru Lal Bhoi S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Girwa, Udaipur.
3. Babar Lal Sharma S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 78 Years,
R/o Gram Utarwada, Post Mahuda, Tehsil Badi Sadri,
District Chittorgarh.
4. Prem Shankar Bharawa S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Kheroda, Vallabh Nagar, Dist. Udaipur.
5. Masiti Begam W/o Yusuf Khan, Aged About 80 Years, R/o
Vallabh Nagar, Udaipur.
6. Babu Lal Jain S/o Kalu Ji, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
Buvana, Teh. Badgaon, Udaipur.
7. Heera Lal Dangi S/o Chen Ram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Buvana, Teh. Badgaon, Udaipur.
8. Bhagwati Lal Choubisha S/o Arjun Lal, Aged About 85
Years, R/o Muvana, Teh. Badgaon, Udaipur.
9. Rodilal Paliwal S/o Amrit Lal, Aged About 80 Years, R/o
Buvana, Teh. Badgaon, Udaipur.
10. Pushkar Lal S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Dungala, Chittorgarh.
11. Ram Lal S/o Jagnat Mali, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Badbai, Teh Dungala, Chittorgarh.
12. Ali Husain S/o Turaf Ali, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Kheroda, Vallabhanagar, Udaipur.
13. Sohan Lal Choudhary S/o Lalu Ji, Aged About 74 Years,
R/o Chandra Kheri, Badi Sadri, Chittorgarh.
14. Raghunath Prasad S/o Heera Lal Soni, Aged About 76
Years, R/o Kanod, Udaipur.
15. Laxmi Bai W/o Gordhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 70
Years, R/o Edara, Teh Dungala, Dist Chittorgarh.
16. Huraj Devi W/o Bhagwan Gameti, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Naya Gav Dungarpur.
17. Nirmala Devi W/o Tilokinath, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Naya Gav Dungarpur.
18. Mangi Lal S/o Phoola Ji Roth, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Mandav, Dungarpur.
19. Sharda D/o Laxman Das, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Mandav, Dungarpur.
20. Mani Devi W/o Bheem Shankar, Aged About 80 Years, R/o
Utarda, Teh Salumber, Udaipur.
21. Ganga Devi W/o Kuri Lal Patidar, Aged About 73 Years,
R/o Naya Ganv, Mandav, Dungarpur.
(2 of 4) [CW-10621/2021]
22. Fateh Lal Choudhary S/o Rikab Chand, Aged About 72
Years, R/o Badi Sadri, Chittorgarh.
23. Damodar Lal Vyas S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 80 Years,
R/o 127 K Sector 14, Udaipur.
24. Ugar Singh S/o Vakhatawar Singh, Aged About 82 Years,
R/o Dhariyabad, Pratapgarh.
25. Babar Lal Joshi S/o Hari Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Uttar Wada, Chittorgarh.
26. Bhanwar Singh Jhalla S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 72
Years, R/o Amarpura, Jhadol, Udaipur.
27. Suraj Devi W/o Shankar Lal Sad, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o Naya Bera, Dungarpur.
28. Khurshid Ahmed S/o Manjor Khan, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Ajam Colony, Lalah Talai, Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secreatriate, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secreatriate, Jaipur.
3. Director, Medical And Family Welfare Department,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bhawad.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
24/02/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter is
squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in
Dadam Das Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.8309/2012, decided on 20.05.2013. The judgment
reads as under :-
"The petitioner entered in the services of the
respondents, being appointed as Multipurpose Health
(3 of 4) [CW-10621/2021]
Worker (Male) under the order dated 11.2.1991 in the
pay-scale of Rs.950-1520. As a consequent to the
amendment introduced in Rajasthan Civil Services
(Revised Pay-scale) Rules, 1989, the pay-scale of
Rs.950-1680 was allowed to the petitioner while
serving as Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). The
respondents vide order dated 13.3.2002 allowed pay-
scale of Rs.3200-4900 as first selection grade w.e.f.
19.2.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that
instead of the pay-scale of Rs.3200-4900, pay-scale of
Rs.4000-6000 should have been as the first selection
grade. It is submitted that the petitioner is holding an
isolated post, therefore, selection grade should have
been allowed to him as per para-5 of the Government
of Rajasthan circular dated 25.1.1992 and its
subsequent order dated 17.2.1998.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed on
behalf of the respondents stating therein that the
petitioner, though, was working as Multipurpose Health
Worker (Male), but that is not a post isolated one, as
such, the pay-scale was allowed to him pertaining to
the first promotional post.
Heard.
The post of Health Worker (Male) (Ordinary
Scale) is prescribed under the Rajasthan Medical &
Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. Appointment
to this post is required to be made 100% by way of
direct recruitment. Under the Rules aforesaid, no
promotion avenue was available to the Multipurpose
Health Worker (Male) on the day the petitioner became
entitled to have the first selection grade, as such
selection grade is required to be given to the petitioner
as per para-5 of the Government of Rajasthan circular
dated 17.2.1998. Under the notification aforesaid, the
pay-scale applicable for the petitioner is Rs.4000-6000.
The respondents, therefore, erroneously made fixation
of the petitioner's pay in the pay-scale of Rs.3200-
4900 after awarding first selection grade.
As a matter of fact, the issue involved in this
petition for writ has already been adjudicated earlier in
the case of Asha Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
(4 of 4) [CW-10621/2021]
Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5333/2006 decided on
17.5.2013).
Having considered all the facts of the case, this
petition for writ for the reasons given deserves to be
accepted. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The
respondents are directed to allow first selection grade
to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000
w.e.f. 11.2.1991 and second & third selection grades in
terms of para-5 of the circulars dated 25.1.1992 and
17.2.1998. No order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners
shall be satisfied if their representations are decided by the
respondents in light of the aforequoted precedent law of Dadam
Das Vaishnav (supra).
In light of the aforequoted judgment, the writ petition is
disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the
representation of the petitioners in terms of aforementioned
precedent law within a period of 30 days from today strictly in
accordance with law.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
88-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
