Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalyan Singh Sodha vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4670) on 24 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:4670]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13787/2019
Kalyan Singh Sodha S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of House No. F-20, Agriculture Research Station
Campus, Beechwal, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University,
Bikaner through its Registrar.
3. Director Research, Directorate of Research, Swami
Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner.
4. Zonal Director of Research, Agricultural Research Station,
Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Counsel assisted
by Mr. Rajesh Punia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/01/2025
1. The order dated 04.09.2019, whereby the respondent no.2 -
Registrar of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural
University, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') had
cancelled the petitioner's engagement as Ex-cadre employee
under the Daily Wages Employees Welfare Scheme Rules, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1990' or 'the Scheme of
1990') is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition,
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:02:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (2 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
which has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
2. The facts in nut-shell as pleaded in the petition are, that the
petitioner had been working with the respondent - University as
Electrician since 1993. Meanwhile, in order to give effect to
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shreekant
Modak, the respondent - University introduced above referred
Scheme and provided that all the casual workers working with the
respondent - University will be given status of Ex-cadre and will
be paid fix pay as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1990.
3. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
after being considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee, the
respondent no.3 by order dated 02.12.2015 conferred 'Ex-cadre
employee' status to the petitioner under the Rules of 1990 and
fixed his pay at Rs.6050/- per month apart from Dearness
Allowances, House Rent Allowances etc., while treating his initial
date of appointment/engagement as year 1993.
4. Learned counsel contended that pursuant to a complaint qua
such status granted to the petitioner, the respondent - University
issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2019 asking him as to
why the status of 'Ex-cadre employee' given to him vide order
dated 02.12.2015 be not withdrawn.
5. In response to the notice aforesaid, the petitioner filed a
reply dated 22.07.2019 before the inquiry committee, which sent
a report. And acting upon the said report furnished by the inquiry
committee, by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2019 the
respondent - University withdrew the status of 'Ex-cadre
employee' granted to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:02:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (3 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
6. Inviting Court's attention towards various certificates which
have been placed on record (Annexures-1 to 14), learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner had indisputably served the
respondent - University as an Electrician and considering the facts
and material available on record so also the fact that the
petitioner had worked for more than ten years, the respondent-
University had granted the status of Ex-cadre to the petitioner. He
argued that the status of 'Ex-cadre', which was given to the
petitioner after due consideration of the factual matrix has been
arbitrarily withdrawn by the respondents, that too without
considering the material available on record.
7. After reading the order impugned dated 04.09.2019 in its
entirety, Mr. Vyas argued that the inquiry committee was swayed
by the fact that the petitioner had got a private firm (Priya
Electrical and General Suppliers) owned by him, registered with
the respondent - University in the year 2013. While pointing out
that the same was later on cancelled on 14.11.2014, he
emphasized that even if the petitioner's error of getting his firm
registered with the respondent - University is taken to be a fact
against him, the respondent - University was required to exclude
such period and consider his case, as he had worked with the
respondent - University for more than ten years.
8. While questioning the legality and propriety of the office
order dated 06.09.2019, learned counsel argued that withdrawing
the petitioner's 'Ex-cadre' status is not only arbitrary but also
contrary to law, inasmuch as the office order dated 06.09.2019
refers to Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990, whereas no pay in lieu
of one month's notice was issued to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:02:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (4 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
9. While raising a grievance that the entire exercise has been
conducted at the behest of a complainant, learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner has reached an age, where he
cannot get any other employment and prayed that a sympathetic
view be adopted. He implored that the order impugned be
quashed, particularly because the petitioner has been working at
the strength of interim order dated 17.09.2019 passed by this
Court.
10. Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent - University submitted that the petitioner had not
worked as a seasonal workman and highlighted that there is no
post/work of Electrician in work places of the respondent -
University. He invited Court's attention towards the Rules of 1990
and argued that as per Rule 2(d), only those persons who had
worked in Agricultural Farm; Animal Farm and Poultry Farm etc.,
as seasonal workers on daily wage basis or monthly payment
basis were covered under the Rules of 1990.
11. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner had
worked as an Electrician that too through a contractor and the
certificates, which he had produced are of little avail, inasmuch as
they do not establish that the petitioner had worked as a Daily
Wager or on fixed monthly honorarium, as a seasonal worker. It
was argued by Mr. Punia that the Rules of 1990 were framed to
cover all those seasonal workers, who have discharged duties of
agriculturists and labourers etc. in the farms maintained by the
respondent - University and not to cover the persons like the
petitioner, who had discharged ancillary duties such as Electrician,
that too through a contractor.
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 10:02:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (5 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
12. Having said so, learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that the inquiry committee has considered each and every aspect
of the matter and recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had
not worked as a seasonal labourer. He argued that in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
this Court should not enter into fact finding exercise.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
14. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for
the petitioner, this Court would like to reproduce certain provisions
of the Rules of 1990, which reads thus:-
"fu;e 2- ifjHkk'kk,a%&
¼d½ nSfud osruHkksxh ¼vkdfLed deZpkjh½ ls vfHkizsr ,sls O;fDr;ksa
ls gS tks oLrqr% d`f'k QkeZ] i'kq ikyu QkekZs] eqxhZ ikyu QkeksZ
vFkok dk;kZy; esa vkdfLed ekSleh dk;Z fuLiknu gsrq HkrhZ fd,
x, gks nSfud vFkok fLFkj ekfld vk/kkj ij Hkqxrku gksrk gksA "
.........
.........
"fu;e 3-¼1½ fu;e 3¼1½ esa izLrkfor osru J`[kyk ds LFkku ij
fQDl osru #- 2550@& e; eagxkbZ] edku fdjk;k HkRrksa ds fcuk
in Lohd`r dh fLFkfr esa ds nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa tks 10 o'kZ ls
vf/kd dk;Zjr dks ns; gksxhA ysfdu ;g osru Lohd`fr dh frfFk ls
gh ns; gksxk fiNyk ,fj;j ns; ugha gksxkA"
15. A simple look at the above quoted provisions of the Rules of
1990 shows that employees or workmen covered under the Rules
of 1990 are those daily wagers/casual workers, who have worked
on seasonal basis in the agricultural farms, animal husbandry
farms and poultry farms of the respondent - University.
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (6 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
16. The petitioner has relied upon the documents Annexures-1
to 14, but all of them show the petitioner to have worked as an
Electrician. Furthermore, the documents filed by the respondent -
University establish that the petitioner had worked through a
contractor or as a contractor and that there was no direct
empoloyer-employee relationship between the respondent -
University and the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination can the
petitioner claim that he had worked as a daily wager or casual
workman.
17. So far as the order impugned is concerned, the same was
passed after observing principles of natural justice. A detailed
notice was issued to the petitioner and a response was elicited.
The order under consideration (dated 04.09.2019) is based on
consideration of inquiry report and exhibits due application of
mind.
18. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondents did not give him a month's salary in lieu of notice, as
required under Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990 is untenable,
because withdrawal of petitioner's 'Ex-cadre' status is by dint of
the order dated 04.09.2019; the same has not been passed in
exercise of provisions contained in Rule 24(1) of the Rules of
1990. Reference of Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990 in the
communication dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-27) is therefore,
insignificant and inconsequential.
19. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1990 is applicable only in those
cases, where for the reasons other than the withdrawal of the
order granting 'Ex-cadre' status, the employer feels that the 'Ex-
cadre' status given to a workman is required to be cancelled owing
[2025:RJ-JD:4670] (7 of 7) [CW-13787/2019]
to some reason, including that the services are not required.
Neither the notice initially issued to the petitioner nor does the
order dated 04.09.2019 make a reference of Rule 24(1) of the
Rules of 1990. Hence, reference of the provision of Rule 24(2)
does not render the proceedings illegal, as has been canvassed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. The discussion foregoing clearly shows that the petitioner
has no case worth interference. There is no merit or force in the
writ petition, for which it is, hereby, dismissed.
21. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
192-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
