Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dama Ram Seju vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14710/2019
Dama Ram Seju S/o Moda Ram Seju, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
V/p Thanthar Kader, Post Bamnore, Tehsil Sedwa, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General, Registration And Stamps, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps,
Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi for
Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
26/07/2022
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by a judgment passed in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16565/2018; Roopram & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 05.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not refute the above
submission.
In Roopram's case, this Court observed as under:
"Therefore, the order dated 18.01.2018 vide
which the services of the petitioners were
protected till the period anyone of the three
conditions mentioned therein is fulfilled, has
now been taken care of. The project has come
to an end and regularly selected candidates
have been appointed, therefore, the present
petitioners cannot be continued in service.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the impugned order dated 31.08.2018.
However, in view of the office order dated
29.04.2022, it is made clear that if in pursuance
to the same, any person is appointed in
(2 of 2) [CW-14710/2019]
replacement of any of the petitioners herein, it
would be open for the said petitioners to claim
priority for continuance in service and the
service of such petitioners would not be
replaced by any other similarly situated
persons.
The other relief, as prayed for in present
writ petitions is for grant of the remuneration
for the period for which the petitioners had
worked. It has been submitted by the learned
AAG that the amount qua the salary of the
petitioners till the passing of the impugned
order dated 31.08.2018 has already been made
to the concerned placement agency and the
claim of the petitioners qua the salary if any, till
that period, would lie only against the
placement agency. So far as the period from
31.08.2018 till date is concerned, learned AAG
assures the Court that the same would be paid
to the placement agency within a period of eight
weeks from the passing of this order.
In view of the submission made by the
learned AAG, no direction needs to be passed
by this Court qua the said relief too. However,
the petitioners would be free to raise their
objections, if any, regarding the unpaid salary
after the period of eight weeks if the same is
not paid till that date.
With the above observations, the present
writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
In view of the ratio as laid down in Roopram's case (supra)
and the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
38-T.Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
