Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Babu Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41231) on 8 October, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:41231]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14298/2019

Ramdhani Yadav S/o Shri Ramchandra Yadav, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Badoliya, Tehsil Rawatbhata,
Via Kota, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh.
4. The Panchayat Samiti Badi Sadri, Through The Vikas
Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Badi Sadri, District
Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10613/2019
Murlidhar Nayak S/o Late Shri Puna Ram Nayak, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of Rps Colony, Near Post Office, Rawatbhata, Via
Kota, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Badi Sadri,
District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11413/2019
1. Durga Lal Meena S/o Shri Kalu Ji Meena, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Jawara Khurd, Post Rawatbhata,
District Chittorgarh.
2. Chunni Lal Meena S/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, Aged About

(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:53:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (2 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

49 Years, Resident Of Nagani, Post Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Durga Shankar S/o Shri Rang Lal Meena, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Jawara Khurd, Post Rawatbhata,
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Bhensroadgarh, District Chittorgarh.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Badoliya, Through The Vikas
Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Badoliya, Panchayat Samiti
Bhainsroadgarh, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13128/2019
1. Jeevan Lal Khateek S/o Shri Ram Chandra Khateek, Aged
About 33 Years, Resident Of Chetak Market, Near Muskan
Automoibile, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
2. Smt. Sofiya Bee W/o Shri Khalil Beg, Aged About 51
Years, Resident Of Near Mazid, Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Smt. Vijay Laxmi W/o Shri Gajendra Kumar, Aged About
55 Years, Resident Of Har Chowk, Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh.
4. Smt. Prem Bai W/o Shri Kailash Chandra, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Gandhi Chowk, Bhesroadgarh, District
Chittorgarh.
5. Shyam Lal S/o Shri Gopi Lal Meghwal, Aged About 39
Years, Resident Of Village Nagji, Post Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:53:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (3 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Badoliya, Through The Vikas
Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Badoliya, Panchayat Samiti
Bhainsrodgarh, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2019
Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Angad Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 53 Years, Resident Of Hanuman Basti, Dada Badi, House
No. 372, Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Gangrar, Through The Vikas
Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13440/2019
1. Savitri Bai D/o Shri Heera Lal Harizan, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Charbhuja Jhalar Bawadi, Pratapnagar,
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
2. Asha Bai D/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Indra Colony Harizan Basti, In Front Of Diesel Power
House, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
3. Bathun Bai D/o Shri Ram Chandra Ji, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Charbhuja Jhalar Bawadi, Pratapnagar,
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
4. Shyama Bai W/o Shri Ramesh Harizan,, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Charbhuja Jhalar Bawadi, Pratapnagar,
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

(Downloaded on 09/10/2024 at 09:53:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (4 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Badoliya, Through The Vikas
Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Badoliya, Panchayat Samiti
Bhainsrodgarh, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15498/2019
Ram Babu Prajapat S/o Late Shri Tota Ram, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Q.no. 1, Rps Colony, Rawatbhata, Via Kota, District -
Chitorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj And Rural Development Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Panchayati Raj And Rural Development
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayatn Samiti Dungla, District
Chittorgarh.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achal Singh Saluja for
Mr. R.S. Saluja
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

08/10/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (5 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy involved in present cases is squarely covered by the

judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.6469/2020 "Kanhiya lal Nai Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors." decided on 30.09.2022 in the following

terms:-

"Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as 'Gate Keeper' vide order dated 05.08.1981 in Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar on temporary basis. The petitioner joined services on 14.08.1981 which were extended from time to time. In the year 1992, a resolution was adopted in the meeting of Panchyat Samiti, Lunkaransar dated 23.10.1992 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Octroi Collector'.

After abolishment of octroi in the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila parishad, Bikaner enquired about the status of employees working at Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar providing services related to octroi collection and consequently, had been rendered surplus. The Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar furnished necessary details pertaining to all the employees who had been rendered surplus to the Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

An order dated 06.08.1998, was passed by the State Government stating inter alia that the employees who were working in connection with collection and management of octroi shall not be retrenched from services. Subsequently, the petitioner continued in the employment of Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar uninterruptedly from the date of initial appointment i.e.14.08.1981. The Zila Parishad, Bikaner vide letter dated23.11.2007, forwarded a list of employees working in various Gram Panchayats falling under its jurisdiction for accommodation of employees on other posts who were rendered surplus due to abolition of octroi in the State of Rajasthan.

The Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 27.11.2016 allowed minimum pay-scale of class-IV to employees, who were discharging duties similar to the petitioner, after abolition of

[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (6 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

octroi. However, the name of the petitioner did not find a mention in the said list. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that his services had been utilized by the respondent-department for40 years without any break yet the same had not been regularised, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had continuously worked in the respondent-department for almost 40 years discharging duties in similar fashion as of a regular class-IV employee.

It was further submitted that Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar and Zila Parishad, Bikaner had time and again requested the State Government through various communications along with furnishing necessary details, pertaining to the services discharged by the petitioner in the department for the purposes of regularisation but to no avail. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner had discharged duties in the respondent-department against the post of class-IV employee which were perennial in nature and it would be thus in violation of Article 39(d) r/w with Article 43 of the Constitution of India if regularisation of the petitioner in the pay scale applicable for employees working against class-IV posts is not allowed to him. Counsel urged that the petitioner during pendency of the writ petition had stood superannuated from services in the month of October 2021,therefore, respondents may be directed to release pension and other retiral benefits by regularising petitioner's services from the year 1981.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not appointed through regular mode of selection for class-IV post. It was also submitted that the petitioner was engaged by Gram Panchayat, Lunkaransar for collection of octroi on temporary basis, therefore after abolition of octroi in normal course, petitioner's services should have been retrenched but he was allowed to continue on humanitarian grounds pursuant to the order of the State Government dated06.08.1998. It was submitted that petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and after superannuation from services, the petitioner is not entitled to claim regularisation.

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

[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (7 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

Indisputably, the petitioner had served the respondent- department continuously for 40 years. From the record of the case, it is evident that Gram Panchayat, Lunkararsar and Zila Parishad, Bikaner on various occasions requested the State Government to regularise services of the petitioner. The communications sent to the State Government is indicative of the fact that petitioner had rendered satisfactory services continuously as class-IV employee. There is no denial in the reply that the services rendered by the petitioner are similar to that of any employee working against regular class-IV post. Further, the services of the petitioner were utilized by the department on its own without there being any cover of the court's order. The persons similarly situated to the petitioner were granted regular pay scale as was applicable for class-IV employees, vide order dated 27.11.2016, without annual increments.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating similar controversy in the case of Lala Ram Saini v the State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. CWP No.11509/2011, held as follows:

"This Court vide order dated 29.04.2013allowed the petitioner to amend his prayer clause and as per his application for amendment, he had sought that he may be regularized on the post of Class-IV. It is an admitted position that the State Governmenth as issued a notification on 27.02.2009directing for regularizing of all the employees who were working as Class-IV on similar post on temporary basis or even those who were appointed on irregular basis.

This Court in the case of Magan lal Damore Versus State of Rajasthan: SBCWPNO.6038/2013 decided on 09.08.2016 examined the similar controversy in the light of the circular of the State Government and found that such cases where regularization is rejected of employees working on temporary basis for more than 10 years long time were unjustified. In the said case, the order of rejecting prayer for regularization by the Government was quashed and set aside and directions were given to regularize the petitioner's services in the light of

[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (8 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

the circular dated 27.02.2009 upon having completed 10 years of uninterrupted service.

I have thoughtfully considered the facts of the present case and finds that the petitioner, admittedly as per the reply of the respondents, was working since 02.03.1983 as Bagwan(Gardner) (3 of 3) [CW-

             11509/2011]        with      the   Panchayat           Samiti     and
             therefore,    he    can      be    saidto     have       completed

uninterrupted service from1983 all throughout till he attained superannuation on 31.07.2020. Having rendered almost 37 years of service with the respondents, one cannot say that the service was on temporary basis. Such long service has to be treated as substantive service and the petitioner will be deemed to have been regularized in the light of the circular issued by the State Government. Any action on the part of the State or its authorities cannot deprive of person for claiming substantive right for the service which he has rendered with them. It is also noticed that he has been appointed vide order dated 24.9.1982 by Gram Panchayat, Bansur to work as a Bagwan (Gardner) as there is an appointment order and continuity of service.

This court directs the respondents to treat the petitioner as regularly appointed Class-IV employee and further directs to release the petitioner's pension and retiral benefits treating him as Class-IV employee on substantive basis from 1983 up till date of retirement. The consequential benefits arising out of the above order shall also be released. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months."

In the light of the aforequoted precedent judgment and pecuilar facts and circumstances of the case the respondents are directed to regularise services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment as a class-IV employee. Further, respondents are directed to release the pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. However, itis made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any

[2024:RJ-JD:41231] (9 of 9) [CW-14298/2019]

arrears of pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for class-IV employees.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

No order as to costs."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the

present writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the order

passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Kanhiya Lal Nai

(supra).

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 338-344/SanjayS/-