Dhagla Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6432 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27261]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12180/2023

Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Sangram Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Kumpras, Merta Road, Tehsil Merta City, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner, Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship Department, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Jodhpur.

                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Hapu Ram
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with
                                     Mr. Kailash Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

28/08/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by order in

Honey Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.5781/2018, decided on 7.5.2022, whereby, similar

nature petition has been allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court and, therefore, the petitioner may also be accorded the

same relief.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to

dispute that the issue raised in the present writ petition is

[2023:RJ-JD:27261] (2 of 4) [CW-12180/2023]

squarely covered by order in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan

(supra).

3. In the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra), a Coordinate

Bench of this Court inter alia came to the following conclusion:-

"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

[2023:RJ-JD:27261] (3 of 4) [CW-12180/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27261] (4 of 4) [CW-12180/2023]

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.

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."

4. In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the

petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as

given in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra).

5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 135-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)