AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming undermentioned reliefs:-
(I) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, order dated 02.09.2015 (Annex.-09) and 04.12.2017 (Annex.-10) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(II) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner and fixation of his salary in the regular pay scale be made, as per Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
(III) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc.
(IV) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to make Fixation of salary of the petitioner, transfer of services record of the petitioner on the present posting place of the petitioner and to give & last pay certificate (L.P.C.) to the petitioner.
(V) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay due salary of the petitioner.
(VI) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner.
(VII) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy decided is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Virendra Singh Verma V/s. State & Ors. Decided on 02.02.2018 following the decision of Dhanraj Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12846/2017 decided on 15.01.2018), relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
“It may be noticed that the reference made to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006, which appears to be incorrect and must be read as Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
The said judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) has been followed in the case of Chandra Kala Saini (supra), which pertains to the same recruitment i.e. recruitment of 2013, wherein, following the judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and quoting the said judgment, it has been observed as under:-
“Learned counsel further urged that instant batch of writ applications be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), for subsequent to adjudication, a notification has also been issued by the State-respondents in consonance with the adjudication in the case aforesaid on 30th October, 2017, carrying out an amendment in Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
In view of the above; the instant batch of writ applications stands disposed off in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), as extracted herein above.
Needless to observe that the State-respondents would ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit permitting the petitioners to join at their respective place of posting, if already not joined, as expeditiously as possible; preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.”
In view of the specific provision i.e. second proviso to Rule 24 of RSR as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav
(supra) and Chandra Kala Saini (supra), the stand taken by the respondents in orders dated 2.9.2015 (Annex.R/1) and 4.12.2017 (Annex.R/2), is without any basis.
In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.
It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.
In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier.”
Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had earlier preferred the writ petition, which was covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Saroj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2490/2015 decided on 22.05.2015) In response to the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the precedent law of Dhanraj Meena (supra) cited by him, has dealt with the circular/order dated 02.09.2015, which is also subsequent to the earlier judgment, and in the present case also, the circular/order dated 02.09.2015, which was subsequent to the judgment in Saroj & Ors. (supra), is under consideration.
In view of above, present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the dictum laid down in Dhanraj Meena (supra).