Mohd. Imran S/O Shaphi Mohd vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5259 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5362/2022
Mohd. Imran S/o Shaphi Mohd., Aged About 36 Years, R/o 271,
Rodi Wali Sethani Ka Chowk, Shripura, Kota, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical
          And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
          Jaipur.
2.        The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Family Welfare
          Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.        The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Kota, Rajasthan.
4.        The Principal And Controller, Govt. Medical College And
          Hospital, Kota.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

28/07/2022

Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue

involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in

the matter of Jagdish Prasad Nai Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 1507/2022) wherein on 26.05.2022

following order was passed;

"This petition along with a bunch of 12 writ petitions, enlisted in the appended Schedule give rise to same issue, which shall be treated to be part and parcel of the order instant, are decided by a common order.

(2 of 3) [CW-5362/2022]

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the action of the respondents in counting the period of experience of the petitioners, which has resulted in either their becoming disqualified for applying to the post of Laboratory Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.5.2018 and/or to get less bonus marks than what they are actually entitled to.

Submissions have been made that though the petitioners have worked for the entire month, as the emoluments paid to the petitioners have been calculated based on 26 days emoluments, the respondents while calculating the period of experience, have not treated them to have worked for the entire month, which action of the respondents is contrary to the factual position as well as the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, wherein, the minimum wages are required to be calculated in terms of the notifications issued, which provide that the daily wages are required to be calculated by dividing the monthly wages by 26 days and that in the rates fixed, weekly holidays are included in salary, therefore, the respondents could not have deducted the period based on the fact of payment of wages for particular number of days. Further reliance has been placed on judgment in Mahipal Lakhera v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2577/2020, decided on 11.1.2021. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that wherever the petitioners have objections pertaining to the calculation made by the respondents pertaining to their period of experience, they may make representations to the respondents and the same shall be appropriately decided by the respondents.

In view of the above submissions made, the petitioners may make representation to the Director (Non-Gazetted) with regard to the calculation of their experience and consequential fact about their eligibility / award of bonus marks within a period of 15 days from today. The Director (Non-Gazetted) would pass appropriate orders on the representations to be made by the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioners would be free to take appropriate proceedings, in case, they have any grievance qua the decision taken by the authority in this regard.

(3 of 3) [CW-5362/2022]

The respondents shall not conclude the recruitment before passing of the final orders as indicated hereinbefore. It is expected of the respondents to conclude the entire exercise by 31st of July, 2022."

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is

disposed of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Nai (supra).

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /238

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)