Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 400 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal Gadari v. State of Rajasthan

1994-05-16

N.K.JAIN

body1994
Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 apply to all the departments of the State and the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of these rules and he may be appointed. It has been prayed that the letter dt. 22.12. 92 (Ex.2) be declared illegal. (2). The petitioners case is that his father Bhagwan Ram was working as Cattle Guard on daily wages and on completion of two years of service he was given semi permanent status on the basis of Supreme Court decision vide order dt. 29.10.91. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 28.12.1991. The petitioner moved an application that he may be appointed on a suitable post in place of his father and also produced death certificate of his father issued by the Gram Panchayat dt. 19.6.92. The Department in its reply dt. 22.12.92 (Ex.2) stated that they have no instructions that the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) are applicable for giving him appointment. Thereafter the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice Ex. 4 dt. 31.12.1992. In reply to the notice the respondents informed vide letter dt. 13.1.93 (Ex.5) that the Government Circular dt. 22.2.1977 No. F-3 (6) Personnel/Ka-II/75 is not applicable in view of the Standing Orders of the Department. Hence, the writ petition. (3). Notice to show cause was issued on 11.3.93. In response to the notice reply has been filed stating that the Circular dt. 22.2.1977 is not applicable. (4). As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (5). Mr. Vinod Purohit, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Rules framed by the State Government and the Circular dt. 22.2.1977 is applicable to the Forest Department also. He has relied on Geeta vs. State (1) and Mohan Singh vs. State (2). (6). Mr. Barkat Ali, counsel for the non-petitioners has not disputed the law laid down in above cases and reiterated the submissions made by him in the reply. 22.2.1977 is applicable to the Forest Department also. He has relied on Geeta vs. State (1) and Mohan Singh vs. State (2). (6). Mr. Barkat Ali, counsel for the non-petitioners has not disputed the law laid down in above cases and reiterated the submissions made by him in the reply. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is governed by the Standing Orders and there is no such provision to provide consideration of appointment to dependents of work-charged employees died while in service, as per their qualification, according to the notification issued by the Government dt. 22.2.1977 by which the Rules of 1975 has been only made applicable to dependents of work charged employees of Public Works Department including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works & Ayurvedic Departments, therefore, unless the Standing Order is amended or the Rules of 1975 are made applicable to the Forest Department also no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of above cases. He further submits that though this Court in Geeta Devis case (supra) directed to consider of the petitioner but this point was not raised and considered, therefore, that decision is not applicable, so also the decision of this Court rendered in Mohan Singhs case (supra) is not applicable as the controversy involved in this petition was not there. (7). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. (8). From a bare perusal of the Rules of 1975 framed by the Government of Rajasthan it is clear that as per the rule 5 of the Rules, a dependent of Government servant died while in service is entitled for employment as per the qualification except some services mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975. So as soon as the application is moved under Rule 6 in the prescribed form the Department of Personnel shall forward the same to give appointment as per the vacancy according to qualification. Time and again Supreme Court as well as this court has ordered that such dependents of the employee while in service should be considered on compassionate ground without any delay to redeem and to provide immediate relief to the family in distress. But the question for consideration arises in this petition is as to whether the Rules of 1975 are applicable to the present case or not. (9). But the question for consideration arises in this petition is as to whether the Rules of 1975 are applicable to the present case or not. (9). In Mohan Singh vs. State (supra), the benefit of equal pay for equal work was not being granted to the work-charged employees working in the Forest Department, though State took a decision in this direction by making standing orders/Rules but the same were not implemented, therefore, this Court directed the respondents that they shall govern the service conditions of the employees of the Forest Department under the Standing Orders of the Rules whatsoever nomenclature may be given to the approved rules which were framed by the Forest Department and approved by the Government. It has been held that the employees shall be entitled for the benefits of the work-charged employees under these rules from the date the standing orders or rules were approved by the State Government. (10). The said matter went upto the Supreme Court in State of Raj. vs. Mohan Singh (contempt petition No. 158/90 in civil appeal no. 3639 of 89) decided on 29.10.91 and their lordships of the Supreme Court expressed the view that prima facie the direction to regularise the employees who have completed ten years of service making them permanent and those who have completed two years of service by making them semi permanent (Quasi Permanent) will apply to all employees of the Forest Department of the State of Rajasthan irrespective of whether they were employed under the Rules of the Standing Orders and that this direction will cover all employees who have taken employment upto 18.1.1989. In the absence of present controversy resolved regarding applicability of Rules of 1975 in the said decision, that decision has no application to the facts of present case. (11). It is not in dispute that the Forest Department is also a department of State Government but in the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (Rules of 1975) issued vide Notification dt. 29.9.1975 the Forest Department has not been included. (11). It is not in dispute that the Forest Department is also a department of State Government but in the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (Rules of 1975) issued vide Notification dt. 29.9.1975 the Forest Department has not been included. Further a bare perusal of the standing orders shows that there is provision, for providing semi permanent status on completion of two years of service by work-charged employee but in the Standing Orders there is no such provision which provides that dependents of work-charged employees died while in service will be entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said situation nor he could show that the notification issued by the Government dt. 22.2.77 includes the work-charged employees of Forest Department also. Though in Geeta Devis case this court has extended the benefit of the notification of the Government dt. 22.2.77 to a dependent of work-charged employee of the Forest Department and this Single Bench Decision is binding but since in that case the point raised by Mr. Khan in this case was not raised & considered, therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of present case. Therefore, the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful. As discussed above, merely on the basis of pitiable situations statutory provisions (Standing Orders) cannot be put aside, so no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. (12). Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.