Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vimla Kumari vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:35001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8548/2025
Vimla Kumari W/o Late Shri Hari Prasad, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village Lachhri, Tehsil Ladnu District Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer, Through
Its Chairman Cum Managing Director.
3. The Deputy Director Personnel (A/z), Avvnl, Ajmer.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Avvnl, Deedwana-
Kuchaman.
5. The Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
6. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Jodhpur.
7. The Chief Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Headquarter, Mandore, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Chahar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC.
Mr. Vipul Dharnia.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
07/08/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ratio in
the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment
passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5781/2018;
Honey Singh Chouhan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided
[2025:RJ-JD:35001] (2 of 4) [CW-8548/2025]
on 07.05.2022) whereby a petition of similar nature was allowed
and hence, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same
relief.
2. Counsel submits that one similarly situated employee
Rajendra Kumar Meghwal also preferred a writ petition before the
Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13466/2023 which stood
allowed in light of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra) vide order dated
22.09.2023. The said Rajendra Kumar Meghwal has even been
granted the benefits in pursuance to order dated 22.09.2023.
3. With the aforesaid submissions, counsel submits that the
petitioner also deserves to be granted the same relief as in Honey
Singh Chouhan (supra).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the above submissions.
5. In Honey Singh Chouhan (supra), the Court observed and
held as under:
"The present petitioner was appointed as Vice
Principal vide appointment order dated 02.08.2017. Prior
to the said appointment, the petitioner was working with
the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) as a
Junior Engineer with effect from 30.01.2012.
After being selected with the present respondent
Department, he resigned from the JVVNL specifically
submitting the fact of his being appointed with the
respondent Department. The said resignation of the
petitioner was accepted by the JVVNL on 11.08.2017 with
effect from 04.08.2017. The petitioner thus prayed for
grant of regular pay scale and benefits of the service
which he rendered in the earlier Department but the same
was rejected on the premise that JVVNL, the organization
with which the petitioner was earlier working is not
governed by the State laws and it is not a body governed
by the State. The claim of the petitioner was rejected only
on this sole ground and no other ground.
[2025:RJ-JD:35001] (3 of 4) [CW-8548/2025]
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that JVVNL is by
all means a government undertaking and has relied upon
the judgment passed in Pooja Bhati Vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2017)
decided on 18.12.2017.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio
as laid down in Pooja Bhati's case (supra) would not
apply to the present matter. The same was a matter
pertaining to fresh recruitment whereas in the present
matter, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of his earlier
services. Secondly, the petitioner has joined the
respondent Department after resignation from his earlier
Department and not after simply being relieved by the
earlier Department.
In Pooja Bhati's case (supra) also, the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court was dealing with the issue as to
whether JVVNL is a Department of the Government or not.
After an elaborate discussion of the earlier precedents, the
Court reached to the following conclusion:
"Thus, this Court finds that the Nigam is not a body
so separate or so independent so as to have
individual impact on its employees altogether.
Rather the legislative intention is clearly for
providing the preference to the ministerial staff of
the Department of Government of Rajasthan to
include such employees who are discharging the
duties of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. The
precedent law does not apply in the present case as
the Vinay Mohan Kiradoo (supra) is dealing with
the category change and cannot have any bearing
in the present case and the case of Dhirendra
Sharma (supra) is only dealing with the
applicability of Compassionate Appointment Rules,
1996 which cannot have any bearing in the present
case.
38. In view of the aforesaid observations and
discussions, the present writ petitions are allowed
and the respondents are directed to give 12.5%
reservation to the petitioners for the appointment
to the post of Junior Accountant under the Rules of
1963 treating the Nigam to be a Department of
Government in light of the Sub-Rule (iii) of
Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963."
[2025:RJ-JD:35001] (4 of 4) [CW-8548/2025]
In view of the above ratio, this Court cannot defer
from the opinion that JVVNL is a Department of the
Government and therefore, has to be governed by the
Rules governing employees of a Government Department.
Further the appointment order itself of the present
petitioner had a specific clause which reads as under:
"tks vH;FkÊ iwoZ ls gh fu;fer jkT; lsok esa dk;Zjr gS mUgsajkT; ljdkj ds
fu;ekuqlkj gh osru HkÙks ns; gksaxsa ijUrq inLFkkiuij dk;Zxzg.k ds le; iwoZ
fu;kstd ds }kjk mfpr ekè;e (Through Proper Channel) ls
dk;Zeqä fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ,oa xr Hkqxrkuçek.k i= Hkh çLrqr djuk
gksxkA"
A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear
that any employee who had been in regular service of any
Government Department prior to be appointed in a new
Government Department, he would be entitled to regular
pay scales payable in terms of the Rules governing the
employees of the said earlier Department. There is no
dispute that the petitioner has been appointed through a
proper channel and even resigned through a proper
channel. Therefore, the requirements as provided in the
conditions of appointment have also been fulfilled by the
present petitioner.
In view of the ratio as laid down in Pooja Bhati's
case (supra) and in view of observations made above,
the present petition of the petitioner deserves to be
allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondent
Department is directed to grant the regular pay scale and
the benefit of service to the petitioner keeping in
consideration his earlier services with JVVNL.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of."
6. In view of the submissions made and the aforesaid ratio, the
present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms and
directions as passed in Honey Singh Chouhan (supra).
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
255-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
