Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shankar Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 November, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15127/2022 Tarun Songara S/o Shri Mohan Lal Songara, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Near Godi Ji Mandir Jeenger Colony, Jalore District - Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15133/2022 Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Tana Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 1 Tkwa, P.o. Kewalwali Dhani, Tehsil - Pilibangan District - Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.).

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, District Churu, (Raj.).

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15185/2022 Shankar Lal S/o Shri Mana Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village - Hinjrasar, P.o. Govindsar, Tehsil - Suratgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

                                                                     ----Petitioner



                                         (2 of 5)                   [CW-15127/2022]


                                   Versus
 1.     The   State      Of   Rajasthan,           Through      The   Secretary,

Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.).

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria.

Mr. Deepak Pareek.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Utkarsh Singh & Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 29/11/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against non-issuance of experience certificate, by

deducting the leave period and not issuing certificate for the

period till 18.4.2013.

Submissions have been made that pursuant to the LDC

Recruitment, 2013, when the petitioners applied for issuance of

experience certificate, they were issued experience certificate till

28.2.2013, the last date originally scheduled in the advertisement.

Further submissions have been made that while issuing the

said certificate, the dates, on which, the petitioners worked with

the respondents on contractual basis, were correctly indicated,

however, while calculating the period for experience certificate, the

same was reduced by the respondents, which was not justified.

(3 of 5) [CW-15127/2022]

Further submissions have been made that when the last date

of making application for recruitment was extended to 18.4.2013,

the petitioners approached for additional certificate / fresh

certificate, which was not issued to them till 18.4.2013, which

action of the respondents is not justified.

Submissions have been made that this Court in Manakram &

Ors. v. C.S. Rajan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Contempt Petition

No.528/2013, decided on 17.4.2015, has laid down that the

period of sanctioned leave could not have been deducted by the

respondents while issuing the certificate and, therefore, the

respondents be directed to issue fresh certificates to the

petitioners for the period till 18.4.2013.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

in terms of the Circular dated 26.12.2012, the petitioners were

not entitled for issuance of the certificate for the period they

remained absent from service and, therefore, the certificate has

been rightly issued by deducting the said period, which does not

require any interference by this Court.

In the alternative, it was submitted that the petitioners have

remained on leave for longer period than the leave which has been

sanctioned to them and even as per the judgment in the case of

Manakram (supra), once the petitioners have been on leave /

absent more than the period the same has been granted, the

same cannot be included in the period for their experience

certificate.

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

(4 of 5) [CW-15127/2022]

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 of experience, 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 dated 3.5.2013 and the law laid down by this Court."

The Court after referring to the judgment in the case of Smt.

Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009

WLC (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 dated

26.12.2012, came to the conclusion that the said Circular deals

(5 of 5) [CW-15127/2022]

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