Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1329 (RAJ)

Kedar Nath v. State of Rajasthan

1996-11-27

ARUN MADAN

body1996
Honble MADAN, J – Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel that this matter may be taken up for hearing and final disposal on the application for early hearing moved by the petitioner, since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ratan Lal Bohra & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1). The petitioner was not a Gazetted Employee of respondent No. 1 and was holding the post of U.D.C from which he was compulsorily retired vide the impugned order dated 29th June 1992.The said order was earlier challenged before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the petitioner and now by way of this writ petition in this court. (2) In the matter of Ratan Lal Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan(supra) the appe- llants had challenged the impugned order of their compulsory retirement from service which was pased in accordance with the rule 244 (2) of the Rjasthan Service Rules whereby the appellants had been compulsory retired from service in accordance with the said rules.The Apex Court, while allowing the appeals in view of the circular dated 22nd August 1990, which was restricted in its scope and applicability only to the Gazetted Employees of the State Government it was held that the provisions of Rule 244(2) of RSR can be invoked by the appropriate authority only in respect of Gazetted employees of the State Govt. and not to the employees belonging to subordinate services of the State who can be compulsorily retired as per the said rule. (3) In this case the petitioner was promoted on the post of U.D.C. on 6-2-82 and continued to discharge his duties in the office of respondent No.3 at Jaipur & Dausa.By order dated 29-6-92 petitioner was compulsorily retired from service at the behest of respondent No. 3. (3) In this case the petitioner was promoted on the post of U.D.C. on 6-2-82 and continued to discharge his duties in the office of respondent No.3 at Jaipur & Dausa.By order dated 29-6-92 petitioner was compulsorily retired from service at the behest of respondent No. 3. The circular was consequently challenged by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the learned tribunal vide its order dated 25/5/93 disposed of the said appeals on the ground that it was open to the respondents to compulsorily retire Government Servant, in view of the adverse entries in the service record and it was in view of the said adverse entries referred to in the order of learned tribunal that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in accordance with the rule 244(2) of RSR. It is the said impugned order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The Department of Personnel (DOP) issued two circulars on 22nd August 1990 & on 23rd April 1990 in this regard. It was clarified by the DOP that the said circulars can be invoked by the appropriate authority only in respect of Gazetted employees of the State Government and not to the employee belonging to subordinate services. The said circulars were issued as per of rule 244(2) RSR. These circulars came to be challenged in a special leave petition before the Apex Court. In the matter of Ratan Lal Bohra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.(supra) alongwith the connected SLP vide C.A. No. 4805 and 4796 of 1996 and other connected civil appeals which were heard and finally decided by the Apex Court vide its order dated 18th March 1996. In the matter of Ratan Lal Bohra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.(supra) alongwith the connected SLP vide C.A. No. 4805 and 4796 of 1996 and other connected civil appeals which were heard and finally decided by the Apex Court vide its order dated 18th March 1996. The Apex Court while allowing the said appeals opined as under :– `` We have noticed earlier that but for the circular dated 23.4.90 it could not have been possible for the Government to give effect to Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Services Rules.The circular was treated as part of Rule 244(2) .The subsequent circular dated 22.8.90 appears to be an addition to the circular dated 23.4.90 and the decision taken in the circular dated 22.8.90 to initiate for the present action under rule 244(2) in respect of Gazetted Government Servants only was a policy of the Government and not a mere clarification.A careful reading of all the three paragraphs leaves no doubt that for reasons best known to the Government, they have decided to restrict the ope- ration of Rule244(2) in respect of Gazetted Government Servant only. If that be so, the orders compulsorily retiring the appellants can not be sustained. The argument that it is only clarificatory, cannot be accepted in view of the clear language employed in the circular dated 22.8.90, stating that at present action under Rule 244(2) Rajas- than Service Rules is to be initiated in respect of Gazetted Government Servant only. (4)In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is fully applicable to the instant case. (5) As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order dt. 29.6.92 (Anne- xure-1) passed by the respondent No. 3 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as well as the appellate order dated 25.5.93 passed by the Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-2) are quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to re- instate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits which may be admissible to him in accordance with the rules forthwith. (6)The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the above directions.The parties are left to bear their own costs.