Surendra Singh Gehlot vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3191 Raj

[2023/RJJD/010611]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5259/2020

Surendra Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Gehlot, Aged About 33 Years, R/o- House No. 33, Kalpana Colony, Gaddi Maliyan Road, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.). At Present Posted At District Transport Office, Shahpura, District- Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Commissioner-Cum-Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The District Transport Officer, Shahpura, District Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG with Mr. Saransh Viz

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

18/04/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands resolved in

view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court at

Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2963/2007 (Gopal

Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 29th

July, 2015, holding thus :

"32. In the present case, no material has been placed before us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply that the probationers, during the period of their probation, do not perform the same duties and responsibilities and are not required to carry out the

[2023/RJJD/010611] (2 of 3) [CW-5259/2020]

same functions as confirmed employees.

33. We find the practice of payment of fixed remuneration without any allowances and benefit of increments to the probationers, who were appointed after adopting the regular selection process, on substantive posts, or even after following the selection process on ad hoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointed on substantive posts, to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious practice of forced labour.

34. We find no justification for the State Government, to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the Central Government, or in any other States in the country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice of forced labour for its employees, taking advantage of the attraction of the Government service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of the Constitution of India, and against the conscience of the Constitution of India.

35. The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby quashed. The State-respondents are directed to pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the period of probation."

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that against

the above referred order, the State has preferred an SLP and the

same is pending before the Supreme Court, hence, the petitioner

be not allowed the benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instant

case be decided in terms of Gopal Kumawat (supra) with the

stipulation that the rights of the parties would be

governed by the final adjudication of the SLP pending before the

Apex Court in the case of Gopal Kumawat.

[2023/RJJD/010611] (3 of 3) [CW-5259/2020]

4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29th July,

2015, in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra).

5. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary for the

period of probation; subject to adjudication of the SLP pending

before the Apex Court.

6. Before conferring actual benefits, it shall be required of the

respondents to procure an undertaking from the petitioner to the

effect that his rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the

fate of the SLP pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in

case the Division Bench order is reversed or modified in any

manner, he shall be liable for restitution of any

benefits/emoluments so received.

7. All the interlocutory applications and the stay application

stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 52-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)