Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Upendra Singh And Ors vs State And Ors (2023:Rj-Jd:24804) on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:24804]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8315/2016
1. Upendra Singh S/o Shri Mithan Singh, R/o Kishore Nag
(Manda), Near Gayatri Temple, Rajsamand, presently working on
the post of Metric Nakedar.
2. Dhatimati Das Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal, R/o
Mandwana, Mahana, Rajnagar, Rajsamand, presently working on
the post of Metrik Nakedar.
3. Arving Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Devi Lal Sharma, R/o V.P.O.
Sunder Colony, Bhilwara Road, Kankroli, Rajsamand, Present
working on the post of Computer Operator.
4. Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Jhala, R/o V.P.O. Kabiyon
Ka Guda, Ghoda Ghati, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, presently
working on the post of Typist.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Industries and Mines
Dept., Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat.
2 The Secretary, Department of Personnel (A-Gr.II), Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijendra Singh for Mr. D.S. Jasol
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/08/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed that a mandamus be issued to the State to regularize their
services on the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.)/Nakedar from
the date of their initial appointment in service under the Rajasthan
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules of 1957").
[2023:RJ-JD:24804] (2 of 4) [CW-8315/2016]
2. Apprising the Court about requisite facts, Mr. Godara,
learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner No.1
was appointed on the post of L.D.C./Nakedar on 04.12.1990; so
also the other petitioners were appointed on their respective dates
of appointments. He submitted that though, the Rules of 1957
have been made applicable to them, but the petitioners' cases
have not been considered under the said rules.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
identically placed persons, who were appointed as Nakedar, have
preferred the writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1646/2013 : Pramod Bhandari & Ors. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2100/2013 :
Ramesh Chandra Bissa & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
whose writ petitions have been allowed by this Court by order
dated 06.05.2016.
4. While contending that petitioners' case is not different than
that of the case of aforesaid persons, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are also entitled for the
same relief, which has been given in the case of Pramod Bhandari
(supra) and Ramesh Chandara Bissa (supra).
5. Mr. Vijendra Singh associate of Mr. D.S. Jasol, learned
counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the
aforesaid position of facts and law. He, however, argued that
petitioners have approached this Court belatedly in the year 2016,
after knowing that the writ petitions filed by similarly situated
persons have been allowed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
material available on record so also the judgment dated
[2023:RJ-JD:24804] (3 of 4) [CW-8315/2016]
06.05.2016, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Pramod Bhandari (supra) and Ramesh Chandara Bissa
(supra).
7. This Court finds that the petitioners' case is covered on all
fours by the judgment dated 06.05.2016, rendered in the case of
Pramod Bhandari (supra) and Ramesh Chandara Bissa (supra), in
which this Court has held thus:-
"6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record of the case.
7. Admittedly, as far as back on 30.10.1973 the
department of Industries and Mines had decided
that all future fresh recruitments would be made
as Lower Division Clerks, subject to the
qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 1957.
Subsequent thereto, an order also came to be
issued on 26.2.1975 wherein it was directed that
no appointment in work- charge category should
be made at any level and in case of non-
compliance, the whole responsibility financial or
otherwise would be of the appointing authority.
The office order dated 30.3.1973 specified that in
future all appointments would be made only as
Lower Division Clerks, subject to their
qualifications as prescribed under the Rules of
1957 . Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957 came to be
amended by notification dated 20.8.1978 wherein
it was specified that employees previously
employed as Nakedars or regular work charged
employees are to in the Mines and Geology
department may be absorbed and appointed on
the post of Lower Division Clerk on posts initially
sanctioned subject to their qualification. Even the
[2023:RJ-JD:24804] (4 of 4) [CW-8315/2016]
Rules of 1957 make a provision for absorption of
daily wagers/nakedars working in Mines and
Geology department as class IV employee's under
the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff
Rules, 1957.
8. Therefore as necessary corollary the services of
the petitioners, who came to be appointed in the
year 1980, would not be governed under the Order
of 1974 and will have to be treated as appointed
under the Rules of 1957 since "Mines and Geology
Work-charged Employees (Service Conditions)
Order, 1974" was never notified.
9. In view of the above, the above noted writ
petitions are allowed and it is directed that the
respondents should treat the petitioners as having
been appointed under the Rules of 1957 instead of
treating their appointments under the Order of
1974, which was never notified. All consequential
benefits that accrue to the petitioners be released
to the petitioners while treating them to be
governed under the Rules of 1957."
8. The State's objection of the delay is hereby rejected, as the
above writ petition were allowed on 06.05.2016 and the present
petition has been preferred within no time (on 16.07.2016).
9. The writ petition is thus, allowed in the same terms of the
judgment dated 06.05.2016, rendered in the case of Pramod
Bhandari (supra) and Ramesh Chandara Bissa (supra).
10. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
25-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
