Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madanlal Swami vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16175) on 27 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16175]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7850/2020
Madanlal Swami S/o Late Shri Chunndas Swami, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Swami, Resident Of Ward No. 13 Sheetla Colony
Near Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Devasthan
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Opposite
Meera College, Udaipur.
3. The Assistant Devasthan Commissioner, Hanumangarh
Division, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CVS Shekhawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for Mr. Ritu Raj
Singh Bhati.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral)
27/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, serving as Watchman/Chowkidar, inter alia,
seeks directions to the respondents to grant the petitioner
permanent status from 1987 and a regular pay scale of Watchman
w.e.f. 09.12.1992, along with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed to
the post of Watchman/Chowkidar by an order dated 01.10.1987
passed by the Devasthan Commissioner, Bikaner. The petitioner is
currently working in the office of the Assistant Devasthan
Commissioner of Bikaner, and the petitioner's work has been
found satisfactory. Similarly situated persons, such as Mahesh
Kumar Ojha and Smt. Kanchan Devi, were granted relief for
regularization as well as a regular pay scale. The petitioner has
discharged all the functions performed by other similarly situated
employees and has been working in the office of the Assistant
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (2 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
Devasthan Commissioner, Hanumangarh Division, discharging
duties with full dignity and sincerity. The petitioner, working as a
watchman since 1987, is set to retire in 2026. The petitioner has
submitted representations to various respondent authorities,
requesting regularization of services from the date of
appointment, along with the regular pay scale and other benefits
granted to similarly situated employees in the respondent
department, but to no avail. Hence, this petition.
3. The relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply
inter alia is that petitioner, appointed under the Rajasthan Fund
Service Rules, 1959, is governed by those rules, not the Rajasthan
Subordinate Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. The petitioner is a Class
IV employee (Chowkidar), and the 1957 rules do not apply. The
petitioner's pay was fixed according to the Devasthan Nidhi
Karmachhari (Revised Pay and Allowances) Rules, 2010, which
governs employees appointed under the 1959 rules, and the
petitioner has continuously accepted these pay scales without
objection. In the case of Smt. Kanchan Devi is not applicable to
the petitioner, as it was based on the pre-2010 rules, and the
petitioner has already received benefits under the 2010 rules.
Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and perused the case record.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment
rendered by this Court in the case titled Sanghilal Changgani
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (3 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
No.8906/2011, decided on 16.07.2014, wherein it has been held
as under :-
"7. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the
record and relevant rules.
8. Strangely, the respondent Department has taken a completely
unsustainable stand in the present case before this Court. From
extracted portion of reply of the respondents, it is clear that the
respondents are proceedings on wholly erroneous assumption that
the petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in Class IV cadre
on adhoc basis way back in the year 1966 and later on in the year
1975 he was appointed as part time Chowkidar since no regular
post of Peon was available in the cadre governed by `The Service
Rules Relating to the Staff of Self Supporting (Funded) Court of
Wards Temples Under the Control and Superintendence of
Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, 1959' ( for short hereinafter
referred to as `the Rules of 1959'). It appears that the respondents
have completely ignored their own order dated 13/7/1966 (Annex.1)
itself and the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Peon vide
Annex.2 dated 6/10/1969. When a person is appointed substantively
against the vacant post as Peon in Class IV cadre, one fails to
understand how he could be reverted back to the post of a part time
Chowkidar, except by authority of law by way of disciplinary action
taken against him. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Devasthan Department in 1975 asking him to discharge the duties
of part time Chowkidar is nothing but an order of change of nature
of duties as Peon/Chowkidar in Class IV cadre. There was no
question of reducing his pay or not giving him the regular pay scale
and only pay him fixed monthly salary as part time Chowkidar
under the guise of Fund Rules, which are applicable to the part time
Chowkidar. It may be that because payment of part time Chowkidar
was only Rs.5/- pm less than the regular pay of a Peon of Rs.60/- pm
in 1975 when the petitioner filed the aforesaid representation
Annex.5 dated 17/1/1975 but that difference over a period of time
became huge and if the regular pay scale had been granted to the
petitioner, he would have been getting normal pay of Class IV
servant or a Peon rather than the fixed pay of part time Chowkidar
under the Fund Rules, 1959. There is no order on record specifically
abolishing the post of Peon under the Fund Rules,1959. On the
contrary the revision of pay scales for Peons was given from time to
time under the Revision of Pay Scales in 2002 & 2010.
9. There has been absolutely no justification for the respondents to
take work from the petitioner as a Chowkidar even though he was
duly and regularly appointed on substantive post of Peon in Class
IV cadre and to change the regular pay scale being given to the
petitioner to the fixed monthly salary as was done in the present
case and due the inaction on the part of respondent Department, the
petitioner till his retirement on 31/12/2010 was only getting
Rs.1000/ pm while the others so similarly situated and working on
the Class IV post would have been getting more than Rs.10,000/- pm
approximately or may be more.
10. The petitioner has spent his entire life serving the temple of God
but under the nose of the God, by the illegal and rather mischievous
acts of the bureaucrats, he was made to suffer by getting the low
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (4 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
fixed monthly salary of Rs.595/- or so against which he made
several representations also to the highest authority of the
Department and Government but it seems and as it usually happens,
nobody was there to listen to the feeble voice of the poor man and
the genuine request of the petitioner fell on the deaf ears. When the
learned Commissioner sought the relevant information from the
Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department in this regard upon
the representation of the petitioner, a typical delaying tactics was
adopted as was clear from Annex.12, 14, 16 and 17, quoted above
and the Assistant Commissioner stated that since the case of the
petitioner was old and complicated, it would require time to decide
his case. Even though it would appear that earlier the Assistant
Commissioner had favourably recommended the case of the
petitioner vide communication Annex.10 dated 26/2/2008, quoted
above.
11. Thus, in a very pitiable condition, the petitioner had to knock the
doors of this Court about three years back & when after the said
three years this case was taken up for final disposal and the
authorities concerned were directed to remain present in this Court
by the order dated 8/7/2014, the authorities reiterated the same
stand taken by them in the reply, which for the aforesaid reasons
cannot be accepted by this Court and the Assistant Commissioner of
the Devasthan Department, Bikaner, the present incumbent fairly
submitted that if this Court passes appropriate directions, they
would abide by them and grant suitable relief to the petitioner. The
interim order passed by this Court on 8/7/2014 is quoted below for
ready reference: -
"This is a peculiar case where a poor person,
who served the respondent Devasthan Department of
the Government of Rajasthan from 1966 till his
superannuation in the year 2010, as a peon/chowkidar
has not been paid any pension or other retiral benefit
and, on the contrary, though initially he was regularly
given the appointment as a Peon as Class-IV servant
but later on, as a Chowkidar on a fixed monthly
amount of Rs.500/- He was allowed to work as
Chowkidar in a temple in Bikaner and retired as such.
On the purported ground that since he was a part-time
Chowkidar, therefore, not treating him as a regular
employee of the State Government, no pensionary
benefits were paid to him. The representation made by
him did not yield anything and hence, the present writ
petition was filed by him.
Prima facie, it shocks the conscience of this
Court. A serious miscarriage of justice against the
petitioner appears to have taken place. Therefore, the
respondent Assistant Commissioner of Devasthan
Department, Bikaner and a responsible officer from the
Pension Department at Bikaner are directed to appear
before this Court on the next date and show cause as to
why the petitioner be not held entitled to the grant of
pensionary and other retiral benefits, treating him as a
regular employee of the State Government.
Put up on 16 th July 2014, after showing name
of Mr Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, counsel for the
Pension Department and both the counsel are directed
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (5 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
to inform the concerned officers of the Department to
remain present on the next date, positively."
12. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that since
under the provisions of the "The Service Rules Relating to the Staff
of Self Supporting (Funded) Court of Wards Temples Under the
Control and Superintendence of Devasthan Department, Rajasthan,
1959" the post of Peon was abolished and, therefore, the petitioner
was given the duties of part time Chowkidar is also misconceived,
as admittedly, no specific order was passed for abolition of the post
under the said Fund Rules, 1959 nor any specific order appointing
him as part time Chowkidar was ever passed by any competent
authority of the respondent Department. The cadre of Class IV
employees is admittedly included under the said Fund Rules of 1959
as well and from time to time pay revisions of the employees covered
by these Fund Rules have been made and attention of this Court was
drawn to certain Notifications issued under the Devasthan Fund
Employees (Revised Pay Scales) Rules,2002 vide Notification
No.प.4(1) दे व/96 dated 18/1/2002 and Notification No. प.4(4) दे व /10
dated 30/8/2010. Consequently, even if the petitioner is covered by
the said Fund Rules of 1959, there was no justification for treating
him as part time Chowkidar only till the age of his superannuation
and he should have been absorbed as Class IV servant under the
said Rules.
It may also be stated here that if the petitioner was never
made a member of Provident Fund and he never contributed to the
said Provident Fund nor the respondent State contributed its share
for his Provident Fund, instead of getting the Provident Fund dues
back from the respondent State, the petitioner shall be entitled to get
pension payable to the Class IV employees and the petitioner cannot
be deprived of either of them, the Provident Fund dues or the
pension in the alternative. Therefore, rejecting the contention of the
respondents, it is directed that the respondent Department shall pass
appropriate orders for either making refund of Provident Fund
deposits made by the petitioner, if such amount was ever deducted
from the salary of the petitioner or shall prepare the pension case of
the petitioner and forward the same to the Pension Department for
payment of regular pension to the petitioner within a period of three
months from today.
13. The petitioner at the relevant time, if he has contributed to the
Provident Fund then only the Pension Scheme may not be
applicable to him. But in that case he would get his Provident Fund
dues with interest. Rule 25 of Fund Rules, 1959 provides that every
permanent member of the Staff shall be required to subscribe to the
P.F. The Rule 25 of the Rules, 1959 reads as under:
"25. Retiring Benefits.- (a) The staff shall
subscribe to a Provident Fund.
(b) Every permanent member of the staff after
the date of the commencement of these rules shall be
required to subscribe to the P.F. of the temple or
institution under which he is employed at the rate of
six and one quarter per cent of his basic salary in
accordance with the rules made thereunder. The
temple or institution shall contribute to the P.F. of
each subscriber an amount equal to the amount of his
subscription.
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (6 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
(c) The retired Government servants who are re
employed will not be eligible to contribute to the
Provident Fund."
Since it is not clear from the material on record whether the
petitioner was ever made a member of the Provident Fund of the
said Department or not, the following directions are given.
14. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the
present case great injustice has been done by the respondent
Department and the petitioner certainly beyond the pale of doubt
was entitled to the regular pay scale of Class IV with all fixation
and revision of pay in accordance with the Rules including the
revision of pay upon recommendation of 6th Pay Commission also
deserves to be computed and paid accordingly. Since not a single
penny has been paid to the petitioner after retirement in the form of
retiral dues for the fault of the respondent Department, the
petitioner is also entitled to the some compensation.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and
same is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner
continuously employed as Class IV employee i.e. Peon irrespective
of the work taken from him as Peon/Chowkidar in the Temples,
maintained and administered by the Devasthan Department under
the Fund Rules, 1959 and after making the suitable orders for pay
fixation, as if the petitioner had throughout worked as Peon in Class
IV cadre including revision of pay and after adjustment of the
amount already paid to him, wrongly treating him as part time
Chowkidar only, the balance amount may be paid to the petitioner
within three months from today positively. For the loss of interest on
the arrears of pay and retiral benefits, the respondents shall pay a
lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lac (Rs.One Lac only) to the
petitioner within three months from today.
16. The case for grant of pension to the petitioner as a Class IV
employee shall depend upon the factum of his being a member of
Provident Fund as per Rule 25 of the Fund Rules, 1959 or not. If no
Provident Fund account of the petitioner was ever opened &
contributions were never made by him & the Department, he may be
entitled to the pension as a Class IV servant as per Pension
Rules,1996, as there is no prohibition against grant of pension to
class IV servants of the State Government under the Fund Rules of
1959.
17. Therefore, on this aspect, the respondent Assistant
Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner will pass
appropriate orders within three months from today after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised
representative. If, however, he was a member of Provident Fund &
such Provident Fund dues have been paid to him at the time of his
retirement, the petitioner will not be entitled to any pension. The
Provident Fund account, if opened, but his dues have not been paid,
the same may be paid to him within three months from today.
18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith."
[2025:RJ-JD:16175] (7 of 7) [CW-7850/2020]
6. On a Court query to the learned counsel for the respondents,
it transpires that the case of the petitioner herein is similar to the
one in the judgment ibid.
7. Having perused the judgment ibid myself, I am of the view
that controversy raised herein has since already been put to rest
and case of the petitioner is covered on all four squares and I see
no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to him.
8. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed in the same
terms as judgment ibid. All pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
9. Needful exercise be carried out within a period of 60 days
from the date petitioner approaches the competent authority with
a webprint of the instant order.
(ARUN MONGA),J
24-/Jitender/Sumit
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
