Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Honey Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5781/2018
Honey Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Ganpat Singh Chouhan, R/o
House No. 33, Nursing Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Joint Secretary, Labour,
Skill Employment and Enterpreneurship Department,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Labour, Skill Employment and
Enterpreneurship Department, Jaipur.
3. The Directorate of Technical Education, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
07/05/2022
The present petitioner was appointed as Vice Principal vide
appointment order dated 02.08.2017. Prior to the said
appointment, the petitioner was working with the Jodhpur Vidhyut
Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) as a Junior Engineer with effect
from 30.01.2012.
After being selected with the present respondent
Department, he resigned from the JVVNL specifically submitting
the fact of his being appointed with the respondent Department.
The said resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the JVVNL
on 11.08.2017 with effect from 04.08.2017. The petitioner thus
prayed for grant of regular pay scale and benefits of the service
which he rendered in the earlier Department but the same was
(2 of 4) [CW-5781/2018]
rejected on the premise that JVVNL, the organization with which
the petitioner was earlier working is not governed by the State
laws and it is not a body governed by the State. The claim of the
petitioner was rejected only on this sole ground and no other
ground.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that JVVNL is by all
means a government undertaking and has relied upon the
judgment passed in Pooja Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2017) decided on 18.12.2017.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio as laid
down in Pooja Bhati's case (supra) would not apply to the
present matter. The same was a matter pertaining to fresh
recruitment whereas in the present matter, the petitioner is
claiming the benefit of his earlier services. Secondly, the petitioner
has joined the respondent Department after resignation from his
earlier Department and not after simply being relieved by the
earlier Department.
In Pooja Bhati's case (supra) also, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court was dealing with the issue as to whether JVVNL is a
Department of the Government or not. After an elaborate
discussion of the earlier precedents, the Court reached to the
following conclusion:
"Thus, this Court finds that the Nigam is not a
body so separate or so independent so as to
have individual impact on its employees
altogether. Rather the legislative intention is
clearly for providing the preference to the
ministerial staff of the Department
of Government of Rajasthan to include such
employees who are discharging the duties of
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. The
precedent law does not apply in the present
case as the Vinay Mohan Kiradoo (supra) is
(3 of 4) [CW-5781/2018]
dealing with the category change and
cannot have any bearing in the present case and
the case of Dhirendra Sharma (supra) is only
dealing with the applicability of Compassionate
Appointment Rules, 1996 which cannot have any
bearing in the present case.
38. In view of the aforesaid observations and
discussions, the present writ petitions are
allowed and the respondents are
directed to give 12.5% reservation to the
petitioners for the appointment to the post of
Junior Accountant under the Rules of 1963
treating the Nigam to be a Department of
Government in light of the Sub-Rule (iii) of
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963."
In view of the above ratio, this Court cannot defer from the
opinion that JVVNL is a Department of the Government and
therefore, has to be governed by the Rules governing employees
of a Government Department. Further the appointment order
itself of the present petitioner had a specific clause which reads as
under:
"tks vH;FkÊ iwoZ ls gh fu;fer jkT; lsok esa dk;Zjr gS mUgsa
jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj gh osru HkÙks ns; gksaxsa ijUrq inLFkkiu
ij dk;Zxzg.k ds le; iwoZ fu;kstd ds }kjk mfpr ekè;e (Through
Proper Channel) ls dk;Zeqä fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ,oa xr Hkqxrku
çek.k i= Hkh çLrqr djuk gksxkA"
A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that any
employee who had been in regular service of any Government
Department prior to be appointed in a new Government
Department, he would be entitled to regular pay scales payable in
terms of the Rules governing the employees of the said earlier
Department. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been
appointed through a proper channel and even resigned through a
proper channel. Therefore, the requirements as provided in the
conditions of appointment have also been fulfilled by the present
petitioner.
(4 of 4) [CW-5781/2018]
In view of the ratio as laid down in Pooja Bhati's case
(supra) and in view of observations made above, the present
petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is hereby
allowed. The respondent Department is directed to grant the
regular pay scale and the benefit of service to the petitioner
keeping in consideration his earlier services with JVVNL.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
33-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
