Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Sharma vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:3151) on 16 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3151]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9441/2015
Pradeep Sharma S/o Shri Ganga Shankar Sharma, Aged about
44 years, R/o Gundi Ka Mohalla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Law
& Legal Affairs Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Law Secretary, Law & Legal Affairs Department, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur.
3. The Advocate General, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Vipul Dharia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment (Oral)
16/01/2025
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate directions
to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner from the
date of initial appointment as Stenographer i.e. on 20.10.1997,
with all consequential benefits, including proper pay fixation and
the provision of ancillary benefits from the date of initial
appointment.
2. Briefly speaking, the relevant facts of the case are that the
respondents invited applications for appointment on the post of
Stenographer for the office of Additional Government Advocate,
Jodhpur. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same.
2.1. The respondents, vide an order dated 20.10.1997, appointed
the petitioner to the said post on a contractual basis. The
petitioner continued to perform his duties in the office of the
[2025:RJ-JD:3151] (2of 5) [CW-9441/2015]
Government Advocate and Additional Advocate General, Jodhpur.
Subsequently, by an order dated 02.11.1999, the respondents
granted the petitioner temporary status in service. The petitioner's
pay was fixed in the pay band of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/-. Pursuant
to the order granting temporary status, the petitioner joined as
Stenographer on 02.11.1999.
2.2. Subsequent to granting the petitioner temporary status, the
respondents, by an order dated 21.05.2000, directed the
establishment branch to maintain a service book for the petitioner
in relation to his services as Stenographer.
2.3. It is submitted that a similarly situated employee, Satyendra
Kumar Sharma, who was performing duties as a Stenographer in
the office of the Government Advocate, Jaipur, was regularized on
the post of Stenographer by an order dated 25.06.2004, under
Rule 7(8a) of the Rules of 1957.
2.4. Subsequently, the respondents regularized the services of
employees working on a temporary basis in the office of the
Government Advocate by an order dated 23.09.2011.
2.5. The Government Advocate vide recommendation dated
08.12.2011 had requested the respondent authorities for
regularizing the services of the petitioner and to grant him the
benefit of annual increments.
2.6. By a communication dated 02.03.2012, the respondents
informed the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur, that the
petitioner had been appointed as a Stenographer on a contractual
basis, as per the records available with them.
2.7. By a communication dated 28.03.2012, the office of the
Government Advocate, Jodhpur, informed the respondents that
[2025:RJ-JD:3151] (3of 5) [CW-9441/2015]
the petitioner was fully eligible and entitled to be granted regular
status but to no avail.
2.8. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated
08.12.2011, requesting the respondents to regularize his services
in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1957. He pointed out
that he had attained the age of 40 as of 08.09.2011 and had also
passed English Typing and English Shorthand as optional subjects
in the Senior Secondary Examination.
2.9. By an order dated 06.08.2013, the respondents placed the
petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with a grade pay of
Rs. 3600 and fixed his salary at Rs. 12,900/-. The petitioner has
been discharging his duties since 1997, however, he has yet not
been regularized to date. Hence, this petition.
3. Defence taken by the respondents in their reply is that:
3.1. The petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis,
therefore, no fundamental right accrues in favour of the petitioner
to be regularized on the post.
3.2. It is submitted that, by the order dated 23.09.2011, the
services of only those candidates who had completed 10 years of
service by the year 2006 were regularized. The petitioner,
however, was appointed purely on a contractual basis on
20.10.1997 and, as such, did not complete 10 years of service by
2006.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and have perused the case file.
5. At the very outset it is not disputed that the petitioner's
services were hired on contractual basis some time in the year
1997 and he has been working as Stenographer ever since
[2025:RJ-JD:3151] (4of 5) [CW-9441/2015]
uninterruptedly without any break in the service. Subsequently, it
transpires that the petitioner was granted a slightly better status
by being putting in temporary services instead of being called
contractual.
6. So far as Rule 7, Sub-rule 8(A) is concerned, it is pertinent
to mention that an incumbent shall be regularized to the post of
Stenographer only after reaching the age of 40 years, subject to
the availability of a vacancy. Additionally, the incumbent must
have passed a speed test in Hindi Stenography and Typing or in
English Stenography and Typing, which should meet the standards
of the Higher Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary examination.
As per Advocate General office letter/D.O. dated 28.03.2012,
petitioner meets the eligibility requirements for regularization.
7. On a Court query, both learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
are ad idem that the case of the petitioner, on all fours, pari
materia with the petitioners in writ petition No.10332/2018 in
whose case learned Single Bench of this Court issued certain
directions commanding the respondents to consider their case for
regularization. Though, of course, an intra court appeal filed by
the petitioner therein, before a Division Bench stating that instead
of issuing directions, the petition should have been allowed by
directing the respondents to regularize them forthwith, was
dismissed.
8. On a further Court query to learned Senior Counsel
representing the respondents as to why the case of the petitioner
is not being considered for regularization, given that he has put in
28 years of service. The fact that his service duration is
[2025:RJ-JD:3151] (5of 5) [CW-9441/2015]
uninterrupted clearly reflects that the requirement of job on which
petitioner has been hired is perpetual in nature. The same is not
stopgap arrangement. He would submit that earlier the case of the
petitioner was considered but at the relevant time he had not put
in requisite years of services so as to be considered for
regularization in terms of Apex Court's judgment rendered in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi. He
submits that, as of now petitioner is since eligible to be considered
for regularization, his case shall be taken up on priority and
appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible.
9. In view of the aforesaid candid stand taken, I am of the view
that instead of adopting any adversarial course, it would rather
be more appropriate if the writ petition is disposed of with the
direction to the competent authority to take up the case of the
petitioner on administrative side. In the event, his counter parts
have been accorded the benefit of regularization he be also meted
out with similar treatment to avoid any further heartburn to him.
Needful exercise be carried out not later than four months from
the date of receipt of web-print of this order.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
114-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
