Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar Gadiya vs State Swach And Ors ... on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/012196]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6310/2011
Vinod Kumar Gadiya S/o Shri Mithu Lal Ji, aged about 54 years,
R/o 1/23, New Housing Board Colony, Banswara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Tribal Areas Development Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Commissioner, Tribal Areas Development Department,
Udaipur.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
4. The District Collector, Banswara.
5. The Project Officer, Tribal Areas Development Department,
Banswara.
6. Sanitation Water and Community Health Project, through its
Director, Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta
Mr. Dharmendra Rathore
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/04/2023
1. The petitioner is an employee who was originally appointed
with the SWACH as Junior Accountant in the year 1986.
Subsequently, because of the decision of the State Government to
close down the Project, the employees working with the SWACH
were transferred to other Departments. The petitioner being one
of them was, vide order dated 29.06.1996, sent to the
Department of Fishery Form Development Agency, Banswara for a
period of three years at the first instance. In the year 2001, the
petitioner was sought to be repatriated back to the SWACH Project
which was then run by an NGO. Aggrieved against the said action,
the present writ petition has been preferred. By virtue of interim
[2023/RJJD/012196] (2 of 4) [CW-6310/2011]
order dated 16.11.2017, the petitioner continues to work with the
Tribal Areas Development Department.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy is covered by the judgment passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Lodha v. State & Ors.;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1323/1998, decided on 11.09.2014
and affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal
Writ No.149/2015; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dilip Lodha
& Anr., decided on 11.10.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
4. In the case of Dilip Lodha (supra), while relying upon the
earlier two Division Bench judgments passed in the case of
Bhanwar Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.1573/2002, decided on 05.09.2002 and
Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No.935/2000, decided on 20.01.2011, it was
observed by the Division Bench as under:-
"9. Suffice it to state that all persons
whose names were mentioned in the office
order dated 30.03.1995 are similarly
situated. On closure of the SWACH Project their
services were directly to be absorbed by transfer
in different departments of the State. The
issue concerning rights flowing in favour of said
persons stand decided by two Division Bench
Judgments as noted hereinabove and thus the
impugned decision insofar it concerns Dilip Lodha
passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be
upheld as the issue has attained finality.
[2023/RJJD/012196] (3 of 4) [CW-6310/2011]
10. As regards Mohammed Ayub,
notwithstanding his name not being in the
office order dated 30.03.1995 which
contains the names of the officers and
clerical staff, suffice it to note that undisputedly
Mohammed Ayub was also transferred in the
SAWCH Project of the State of Rajasthan. His
appointment was on 8.08.1989. He was directed
to be transferred to the Sahakari Sangh and
thus even he would be entitled to the same
relief as would be Dilip Lodha."
5. In Ramesh Chandra's case (supra), the Division Bench held
as under:-
"After going through the facts of the case
of Bhanwar Singh Bhati (supra) as well as
the reasons given in the said judgment,
we are of the considered opinion that the
appellants were given appointment on the
post of Junior Engineer and
their services were transferred to PHED
after finding out number of vacancies
available with the PHED. When their
services were transferred to
PHED, then only the appellants could join
the services in PHED where they were
given posting as well as regular pay scale
of Junior Engineer by application of mind by the
State authorities and he issue was considered at
the highest level of executive in the meeting held
under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of the
Government of Rajasthan as back as in
July, 1995 which was attended by
representatives of various departments of the
[2023/RJJD/012196] (4 of 4) [CW-6310/2011]
Government as well as Tribal Development
Secretary under whom the project of SWACH
was running.
In these circumstances, at this belated
stage i.e. even at the time when
the writ petitions were filed, the
respondents had no right to treat the
appellants as not duly
appointed employees on the post of Junior
Engineer."
6. In view of the aforesaid and following the ratio as laid down
in the above mentioned judgments, the present writ petition is
allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to pass an
appropriate order directing for the absorption of the petitioner
with the Tribal Areas Development Department and to regularize
his services w.e.f 01.08.2001, the date he joined Tribal Areas
Development.
7. The petitioner would also be entitled to notional benefits of
seniority, continuity of service period etc. for computing his retiral
benefits after he retires on achieving the age of superannuation.
The needful be done within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of copy of the present order.
8. All interlocutory application(s) including stay application
stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
91-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
