Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43014) on 21 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:43014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18099/2023
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Village Panchori, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Raj.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Raj., Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration), Directorate Of
Medical And Health Services, Raj., Jaipur.
4. The Principal And Controller, Dr. S.n. Medical College,
Residency Road, Jodhpur.
5. The Superintendent, Umaid Hospital, Siwanchi Gate,
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
21/10/2024
1. Grievance of petitioner inter alia stems out from impugned
order dated 31.07.2023 (Annex.18), whereby he has been denied
the requisite bonus marks commensurate with the duration of his
past work experience. While counting his work experience
Sundays and holidays were excluded. It was also held that he has
not provided any evidence whether he worked as a Lab Assistant
or Lab Technician.
[2024:RJ-JD:43014] (2 of 4) [CW-18099/2023]
2. Relevant facts first. The petitioner, serving as a Lab
Technician on a contractual basis since April 1, 2013, applied for
the post of Lab Assistant following an advertisement issued on
May 29, 2018. The advertisement specified bonus marks for work
experience. The petitioner has got 5 years, 1 months and 18 days
of work experience. Despite being listed for document verification
and meeting the eligibility criteria, an office order dated
September 5, 2019, forwarded incorrect work experience details
by the respondent's office by excluding Sundays and Holidays
while calculating the total period of work experience. Despite
multiple representations highlighting the petitioner's eligibility and
correct bonus qua length of work experience, no heed was paid.
Finally, by impugned order dated 31.07.2023, the respondent
authorities have rejected the representation of the petitioner.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case file.
4. The controversy raised herein is no more res integra.
Reference may be had to judgment rendered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Choudhary Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5694/2021
decided on 14.07.2023, which reads as below:-
"8. To provide or allow holiday of Sunday or
weekly off is a statutory duty of all the employers
including State Government. Section 13(1)(b) of The
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and notifications issued
by the appropriate Government from time to time
enjoin upon the State Government/employer to give
one paid holiday to the employee every week. The
weekly off cannot be equated with a leave which an
[2024:RJ-JD:43014] (3 of 4) [CW-18099/2023]
employee takes after it being sanctioned. Such
weekly off is observed or required to be given by the
organizations itself, without the employee
demanding it. Hence, such days of weekly offs
cannot be deducted while calculating the experience
or counting the number of days a candidate has
worked. The respondent's stand is both, contrary to
law and arbitrary, given that the experience is to be
counted on yearly basis as per Rule 19 of the
Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service
Rules, 1965.
9. Almost similar view has been taken by this
Court in the case of Mahipal Lakhera vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2577/2020 decided on 11.01.2021.
10. As a consequence of above deliberation, the
present writ petition is allowed."
5. Having seen the facts of the instant case, it turns out that
the petitioner herein is similarly situated.
6. Accordingly, I see no reason, why the benefit of the aforesaid
judgment be also not accorded to the petitioner.
7. It is so ordered.
8. Before parting, I may hasten to add here that whether
petitioner worked as a Lab Assistant or Lab Technician is also
irrelevant, in view of another judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Narendra Barwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2022 decided on
05.05.2022. I am in respectful agreement with the views
expressed therein by my learned Brother Arun Bhansali J., (as he
then was in this Court). From the import of the judgment, it is
clear that whether the work experience is on the post of Lab
Technician or Lab Assistant, it is insignificant as long as the
[2024:RJ-JD:43014] (4 of 4) [CW-18099/2023]
candidate has worked in the laboratory since duties of Lab
Assistant and Lab Technician are similar in nature.
9. As an upshot, the impugned order dated 31.07.2023
(Annex.18), vide which the representation of the petitioner was
rejected is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner and award him bonus marks as per
his entitlement and reassess his performance.
10. However, it is made clear that the factual narrative of the
case is based on the pleadings of the writ petition and the
respondents shall be at liberty to verify the work experience
certificate of the petitioner.
11. Writ petition is thus allowed as above.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
127-/Arun Pandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
