Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anjna Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17725/2022
Anjna Choudhary D/o Prem Chand Choudhary, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Irrigation Colony, New Chamunda Mata Mandir, Jalore,
District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
(Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, Rajasthan.
4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ahore, District
Jalore.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Jalore, District
Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay associate to
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised
in the present writ petitions is similar to Tarun Songara v. State
ofRajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15127/2022
& other connected matters, decided on 29.11.2022, wherein,
similar petitions have been allowed by the Court and, therefore,
petitioner is also entitled to similar relief.
(2 of 4) [CW-17725/2022]
2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
said submission.
3. In the case of Tarun Songara (supra), this Court inter alia
came to the following conclusion:-
"This Court in the case of Manakram
(supra),while dealing with the said aspect, inter
alia came to the following conclusion:-
"A look at the experience
certificates filed as Annex.-3 with the
contempt petition reveals that the
respondents have deducted the 'period
of leave without pay' from the period of
experience. The notification dated
23.2.2012 issued by the respondents
dealing with the period of absence
provided for adjustment of leave
towards period of absence towards
available casual leave and grant of
leave without pay for the rest of the
period.
This Court in the case of Smt.
Vishnu Kanwar (supra) has
categorically laid down that if the leave
is sanctioned one, then during that
period too the relationship of master
and servant is maintained and the
period of availing sanctioned leave,
thus, cannot be excluded from the term
of continuous service.
In view thereof, the exclusion of
period by the respondents from grant
of experience certificates appears to be
contrary to the law laid down by this
Court.
Reliance placed by the
respondents on the circular dated
26.12.2012 providing for non-
consideration of period of absence for
the purpose of experience, reads as
under:-
(3 of 4) [CW-17725/2022]
"8-lafonk dkfeZdksa dks vuqer vkdfLed
vodk"k ds vykok vuqifLFkfr vof/k dks vuqHko
dh vof/k esa "kkfey ugh afd;k tkosA"
The said instruction deals with
'period of absence' and not with a
'period of sanctioned leave' and
therefore, the said circular also has no
application to the present case.
In view of the discussion here-in-
above, it is apparent that the
certificates (Annex.3) issued by the
respondents are not in accord with the
direction dated 3.5.2013 and the law
laid downby this Court."
The Court after referring to the judgment in
the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC
186 came to the conclusion that if the leave is
sanctioned, the said period cannot be excluded
from the period of continuous service and after
referring to the Circular dated 26.12.2012, came
to the conclusion that the said Circular deals with
'period of absence' and not with the 'period of
sanctioned leave' and directed that the period of
sanctioned leave is required to be included in the
period of experience certificate.
In view of the above, the action of the
respondents in denying to include the period of
sanctioned leave for the purpose of experience
and thereafter non-issuance of certificate till
18.4.2013, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed. The respondent - Chief
Executive Officer is directed to issue requisite
experience certificates to the petitioners for the
period till 18.4.2013 after including the 'period of
sanctioned leave' for the purpose of experience.
It is made clear that the period, during
which, the petitioners remained absent and
which has not been sanctioned, need not be
included in the experience of the petitioners.
The requisite certificate be issued to the
petitioners within a period of ten days from
today. On certificate being issued, the petitioners
(4 of 4) [CW-17725/2022]
would be entitled to utilize the same for the
purpose of document verification pursuant to the
exercise initiated by the respondents by Circular
dated 7.9.2022."
4. In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the
petitioner is allowed with similar directions as given in the case of
Tarun Songara (supra).
5. It is made clear that on issuance of the certificate to the
petitioner as directed above, the petitioner would be entitled to
utilize the same only at Zila Parishad, where she has applied and
posts as of today are still vacant in her category.
6. The certificate would not entitle the petitioner to disturb the
selection / appointments already made / granted.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
116-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
