Gajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1440 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004310]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10550/2018

1. Kamaal Khan S/o Imam Khan, Aged About 53 Years, 2-

Rjd, Sansar Desar, Tehsil Chhatargarh, 3 Rjd, Bikaner.

2. Ram Singh S/o Vijay Singh,, Aged About 62 Years, Ward No. 15, Kharbara, District Bikaner.

3. Laxman Das S/o Nawal Das,, Aged About 60 Years, 3 Km, Sansar Desar, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.

4. Amar Singh S/o Ladu Singh,, Aged About 56 Years, Village Loon Khan, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.

5. Mala Ram S/o Bhiya Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, 416, Sewaron Ka Bas, Riyan, District Jodhpur

6. Bhikha Ram S/o Naingiri,, Aged About 57 Years, Riyan Sethari, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

7. Babu Khan S/o Shri Fakeer Khan,, Aged About 58 Years, Taliyon Ka Bas, Riyan,, Tehsil Pipar City, Jodhpur.

8. Badri Singh S/o Shri Tiku Ram,, Aged About 58 Years, Village 5 Dlm, Damolai, Chhattargarh, Bikaner.

9. Budh Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh,, Aged About 55 Years, Village Khagata, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

10. Bhanwar Singh S/o Devi Singh,, Aged About 52 Years, R C P Colony, Chhatargarh, Bikaner.

11. Jaisa Ram S/o Nathu Ram,, Aged About 60 Years, Chak 1 Gm, Raner, District Bikaner.

12. Ladu Ram S/o Mana Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, Ward No. 1, Chak 1S.1.d. Sherpura, Tehsil Chhattargarh, Bikaner.

13. Jagdish Babu S/o Matadin,, Aged About 58 Years, 262, Mandi Rd, Raner, Chhattargarh, 1Dlsm, Bikaner.

14. Bhura Ram S/o Ganga Ram,, Aged About 53 Years, Village Jawasiya, Peepliya Bera, Post Riyan Sethari, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

15. Bhanwara Ram S/o Shri Mohan Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, Ward No.1, Batdu, Nimbi Jodhan, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

16. Alam Khan S/o Shri Pathan Khan,, Aged About 52 Years, Satasar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/004310] (2 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

17. Balaram S/o Shri Sonaram,, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 5 22 Rjd, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

18. Smt. Sushila Panwar W/o Indrachand Panwar,, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 5 Rcp Colony Chhatargarh, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner.

4. The Chief Engineer, Command Area Development, Bikaner.

5. The Cheif Engineer, Water Resources Department (North), Hanumangarh.

6. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19361/2018

1. Gajendra Singh S/o Kishore Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 30 R.c.p. Colony, Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.

2. Ravant Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh Rathore, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gali No. 2B, Rampura Basti, Lalgarh, Bikaner.

3. Mohan Ram S/o Shri Jhoomar Ram,, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, R.c.p. Colony, Chattargarh, District Bikaner.

4. Saleem Khan S/o Shri Babu Khan,, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Santha, Tehsil Mahua, District Sawai Madhopur.

5. Kanaram S/o Bhagwana Ram Ji,, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Chhatargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.). - 334021

6. Bhura Ram S/o Surjaram Ji,, Aged About 59 Years,

[2023/RJJD/004310] (3 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

Resident Of Ward No. 6, Chhatargarh, Bikaner (Raj.).

7. Hanuman Singh S/o Hukum Singh Ji,, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of House No. 10/11, R.c.p. Colony, Chhatargarh.

8. Tansukh S/o Durga Ram Ji,, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, R.c.p. Colony, Chhargarh, Bikaner (Raj.).

9. Jagroshan S/o Atara Singh Ji,, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 507, Head Post, Mahadevwali, Tehsil- Chhatargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.).

10. Hanumana Ram S/o Ruparam Ji,, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Bankliya, District Nagour (Raj.).

11. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Jaswant Singh,, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Gurudwara Ke Pass, Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.

12. Manohar Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh,, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.

13. Maga Ram S/o Shri Ganesha Ram,, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rajpura Piperan, District Sri Ganganagar.

14. Chaina Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Benata, Post Dariba, District Churu.

15. Bachana Ram S/o Narayan Ram Ji,, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village- Ashapur Post- Kheri Salwa, Th. Pipar City, Jodhpur (Raj.).

16. Naresh Kumar S/o Kundan Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Rcp Colony, Chattargarh, Chhatargarh, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

17. Lichma Devi W/o Mulla Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Chattargarh, Post Office Ke Samne Chattargar, Bikaner, Raj. 334021

18. Chetan Ram S/o Ramu Ram,, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Molasar, Deedwana Nagaur, Rajasthan.

19. Laxman Singh S/o Roop Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Village Jalimpura, Kaliyasar, Kaliyasar Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

20. Mana Ram S/o Shri Biru Ram,, Aged About 57 Years,

[2023/RJJD/004310] (4 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

Resident Of Ward No. 15, Bhansar, Bhandasar, Kharbara, Bikaner (Raj.).

21. Noparam S/o Hukmaram,, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Near Bhutnath Marg, Ward No. 5, Rajaldesar Rural, District Churu (Raj.).

22. Tarachand S/o Mohan Ram,, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 620, Head Colony, Sattasar, Sattasar, District Bikaner (Raj.).

23. Jumma Ram S/o Shri Bherubaksh, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Khatoli Post Khatoli, District Ajmer (Raj.).

24. Kisnaram S/o Harchandram Beldar, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Chattargarh, Bikaner (Raj.).

25. Narayan Singh S/o Shri Meghsingh Rajput,, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Chhajusar, District Churu (Raj.).

26. Bhagwana Ram S/o Kishnaram,, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 72, Ward No. 03, Sampurn Gram Unit Tehsil Ladanu, Bharnawa, Nagour, Bharnawa, (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Bikaner.

4. The Chief Engineer, Regulation, Bikaner.

5. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (North), Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani for Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

[2023/RJJD/004310] (5 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

07/02/2023

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the

controversy is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this

Court in Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016 decided

alongwith other connected matters on 05.12.2022. The operative

portion of the order reads as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is an admitted position that the petitioners were originally the employees of the IGNP Department and were regularised w.e.f. 01.01.1998 while in service with the IGNP Department. The logic and reasoning behind the issuance of the order dated 25.04.2012 is that because of the Work Charged cadre being declared as dying cadre, the Mate working with the IGNP Department could not have been granted promotion on the next promotional post and therefore they were held entitled to be promoted as Work Supervisor Gr.I and to be entitled to the grade pay payable to Work Supervisor Gr.I. The same was for the reason (5 of 7) [CW- 3130/2016] that the Mate and the Work Supervisor Gr.II were declared to be the equivalent post and the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.II was Work Supervisor Gr.I.

The order dated 25.04.2012 issued by the Finance Department specifically directed that the same would come into force w.e.f. 01.01.1998. Admittedly, the petitioners were the employees of IGNP on 01.01.1998 and thus, had accrued a right in their favour with effect from that date. They can subsequently not be discriminated only on the ground that they had been transferred to the Water Resources Department in the year 2011. It is clear on record that the Mate working with the IGNP and the Mate working with the Water Resources Department/CAD were appointed on equivalent post and

[2023/RJJD/004310] (6 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

were governed by the same Service Rules at the first instance i.e. at the time of their appointment. It is also clear on record that the Mate of both the Departments were discharging the same duties and while passing the order in the year 1995, it was specifically found that the post of Mate was equivalent to the post of Work Supervisor Gr.II as both were performing/discharging the same duties. It is only because of the said fact and reasoning that they were held entitled to the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.I and were granted the benefits by virtue of order dated 25.04.2012. This Court cannot find a single point, logic or reason to discriminate between the services of the petitioners and the services of the Mate working with the IGNP Department. A mere transfer from IGNP Department to Water Resources Department, which also is a Branch of the IGNP Department, cannot disentitle the petitioners from the benefits which had accrued in their favour in the year (6 of

7) [CW-13130/2016] 1998 when admittedly they were working with the IGNP Department.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seema Sharma; Civil Appeal No. 3892/2022, decided on 12.05.2022 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: -

"23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspects."

Keeping into consideration the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that the present matters do fall within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is a specific case wherein keeping into consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination between the employees

[2023/RJJD/004310] (7 of 7) [CW-10550/2018]

appointed by the same authorities, in the same manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also the same and duties are also identical in all the aspects.

So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were never pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the said document placed on record. Therefore, the same could not have been refuted or controverted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court is of the specific view that the clarification dated 20.05.2016 cannot be held to be valid as the same specifically discriminates between two set of employees of the same parent department.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr.I on the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the IGNP Department. The essential orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of. "

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ

petition is allowed on the same terms and the respondent

authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection

grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of Work

Supervisor Gr.I on the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the

IGNP Department. The essential orders be passed within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

26-27-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)