Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Gopi Chand (2025:Rj-Jd:34674-Db) on 6 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:34674-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 537/2025
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, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sriganganagar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Nodal Officer (Experience Certificate) Cum Additional
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
5. The Development Officer Cum Programme Officer (Egc),
Panchayat Samiti Gharsana, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Gopi Chand S/o Shri Jugta Ram, Resident Of Village 8 Mld(A),
Post 7 Mld, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
06/08/2025
1. Mr. Pawan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent informs
the Court that the present controversy is covered with the
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No.634/2024 (The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Vs. Tarun Songara), decided on 09.09.2024, along with the
other connected matters.
1.1. In the case of Tarun Songara (supra), the Coordinate Bench
of this Court had passed the following order:-:-
[2025:RJ-JD:34674-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-537/2025]
"Per, Kuldeep Mathur, J.
These Special Appeals (Writ) are barred by limitation
but having regard to the facts pleaded in I.A. (Inward
No.1/2024), we are inclined to condone the delay.
2. Ordered accordingly.
3. The writ petitions giving rise to filing of the instant
Special Appeals were filed by the respondents herein on the
ground that though they worked with the appellants on
contractual basis but at the time of calculating the period for
the purpose of issuance of experience certificate, the
appellants have reduced the days on which the respondents
remained on sanctioned leaves.
4. Learned Single Judge while referring to the judgment
passed in the case of "Smt.Vishnu Kanwar and 157 others v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 186" has held
that if the leave is sanctioned, the said period cannot be
excluded from the period of continuous service as the said
period cannot be treated as "period of absence". It has further
been clarified by learned Single Judge that the period, during
which, the respondents remained absent and which has not
been sanctioned, need not be included in their experience.
5. We find no illegality in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge as it is a settled law that if the leave availed by
an employee is a sanctioned one, then the relationship of
"master and servant" between "employee and employer" shall
remain maintained and the period of availing such a
sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded for the purpose of
issuing experience certificate in favour of such an employee.
6. In view of above discussion, the instant appeals are
dismissed being bereft of any merit.
7. No order as to costs."
2. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to make
any submission before the Court.
3. In light of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel
for the respondent, the present appeal is also dismissed on the
same terms as in Tarun Songara (supra).
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
19-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
