Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1726 (RAJ)

Rang Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2002-10-21

ARUN MADAN

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was initially appointed as Class-IV servant in the year 1966 in the Gram Panchayat, Siwar and as per version of the learned counsel for the respondent he was appointed only on 8.5.1976 by order of the Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur. 2. The petitioner has sought relief in the matter of his entitlement to back wages from the date of his termination from the services of the Panchayat Samiti till his rejoining i.e. for the period of 30.12.1981 to 14.8.1987 which were withheld for the reason that his appointment was revoked by the Standing Committee in hits meeting dated 26th September, 1983. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 3 in not allowing him the back-wages for the period in question by treating him absent from duty. The order of the Standing Committee was revoked by the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. Block Development Officer (respondent No. 2) who directed reinstatement of the petitioner in services of the Panchayat Samiti in view of the order of the Collector dated 17th July, 1987 (Annx. 4) by which the termination of the petitioner was held arbitrary, unlawful and unjustified. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that respondent No. 3 who was the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Siwar, Panchayat Samiti Sawaimadhopur being annoyed with the petitioner had malafidely ousted him from the services on 31.12.1981 on the illegal pretence that the Gram Panchayat had no funds. The petitioner had made representation against the said order before the Administrative Standing Committee, which in its meeting convened on 26.9.83 held that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and directed reinstatement with immediate effect. This fact is borne out from a perusal of order dated 26.9.83 (Ann. 1). 4. In compliance to the aforesaid resolution adopted by the Standing Committee, the then Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur (for short 'BDO') directed the Sarpanch (respondent No. 3) to take the petitioner back to duty forthwith. The compliance of the said order was deferred by the Panchayat Samiti on one pretext or the other and respondent No. 3 had malafidely not complied with the said order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid attitude of respondent No. 3, the petitioner made several representations from time to time but of no avail. The compliance of the said order was deferred by the Panchayat Samiti on one pretext or the other and respondent No. 3 had malafidely not complied with the said order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid attitude of respondent No. 3, the petitioner made several representations from time to time but of no avail. This fact is borne out from the order of the Collector (respondent No. 2), Sawaimadhopur, who in his order dated 17.7.87 (Ann. 4) has categorically deprecated the attitude of respondent No. 3 in not complying with the directions of the Collector by not reinstating the petitioner in services of the Panchayat Samiti, particularly when the order of termination of the petitioner stood revoked by order of the Appellate Authority viz. the Standing Committee. Hence there was no reason as to why the petitioner was not reinstated in services of the Panchayat Samiti, as those reasons remained unexplained on record. Having failed to get any relief, the petitioner had been running from pillar to post as regards non compliance of the order of not only of the Administrative Committee but also of the District Development Officer, Sawaimadhopur, who had issued notice to respondent No. 3 for taking appropriate action against them. 5. Prima facie, I am of the considered view that the Panchayat Samiti was duty bound to comply with the order of both, Collector as well as of the Administrative Committee, particularly when the termination of the petitioner itself stood revoked by orders of the Standing Committee and this attitude has also been condemned by the Collector. There were no sparing reasons or exceptional circumstances as to the respondent No. 3 for not complying with the aforesaid orders, while contrarily the petitioner was treated as absent from duty under the false pretence of the petitioner having rendered services in some other department during the period 30.12.1981 to 14.8.87 for which there appears no justification on the record. There were no sparing reasons or exceptional circumstances as to the respondent No. 3 for not complying with the aforesaid orders, while contrarily the petitioner was treated as absent from duty under the false pretence of the petitioner having rendered services in some other department during the period 30.12.1981 to 14.8.87 for which there appears no justification on the record. The petitioner who is a class-IV employee belonging to weaker section of the society and deserves protection from the Panchayat Samiti while the Panchayat Samiti with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioner with apparent oblique motives did not comply with the order of the higher authorities by adopting recalcitrant attitude.Be that as it may, the petitioner is a low paid employee of Gram Panchayat and was discharging his duties for about 12 hours per day till his termination on 30.12.81 and it is also un-controverted on record that he was re-employed in the same department vide order dated 14.8.87 (Ann. 5) in the services of Panchayat Samiti, Siwar, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. 6. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have contended inter-alia, - (i) that the petitioner had not raised any grievance against the non-payment of back wages for the period from 31.12.81 to 14.8.87 and after the expiry of more than 3 years, the present writ petition has been filed on 29.11.1990, which is wholly belated, hence he is not entitled to any relief since the relief sought for is also not admissible only on the ground of limitation, the said prayer is liable to be set aside. (ii) that the termination order of the petitioner was set aside by the Standing Committee's order dated 26.9.83 (Ann. 1) and if there had been mala fide intention of Sarpanch (respondent No. 3) he would not have ousted the petitioner on 30.12.81. (iii) that since during the period from in 31.12.81 to 14.8.87 the petitioner was not in services of respondent Panchayat Samiti and had worked elsewhere, he is not entitled to any relief which regard to back wages; (iv) in absence of any order or direction back wages for the period on question were not payable to the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined their rival contentions as also relevant documents available on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined their rival contentions as also relevant documents available on record. Prima facie I am of the considered view that once an order of reinstatement has been passed at the behest of the Standing Committee, the Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur upon having set aside the termination of the petitioner from the services of respondent No. 3 and the said order also having been confirmed by orders of the Collector (respondent No. 2) on 17th July, 1987 (Ann. 4), there appears absolutely no justification for not paying the back wages for the period 31.12.81 to 14.8.87 which in fact should have been treated as period on duty and consequently the wages for the said period were payable and lawfully admissible to the petitioner as a matter of right. The petitioner should not have been penalised or faulted with by the respondents. 8. It is pertinent to mention that once the termination of the petitioner having itself been set aside by order of the Standing Committee and so also the Collector in compliance thereof as is apparent from an order of sarpanch Gram Panchayat Samiti, Sawaimadhopur dated 14.8.87 (Ann. 5) by which it was also clarified that the aforesaid period from the date of termination till rejoining will be treated as period spent on duty there was absolutely no occasion for the respondents to deny back-wages to the petitioner. 9. It is not a case of wilful absence on the part of the petitioner because as is apparent from the record that the period had made several representations to the respondents for not having complied with the administrative orders of the Standing Committee and also of the Collector, who had deprecated the attitude of respondent No. 3 for not having taken the petitioner back to duty. Prior to his termination, the petitioner had put in more than 25 years of service and during his service career no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to the petitioner. 10. Prior to his termination, the petitioner had put in more than 25 years of service and during his service career no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to the petitioner. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to payment of salary dues as revised from time to time under the revised pay scale Rules as applicable to the Class-IV employees of the State Government as per Rule-11 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time and so also back-wages for the period 30.12.81 to 14.8.1987. 11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that subsequent to his reinstatement on 14.8.87, the petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties as Class-IV employee to the respondent Samiti. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to pay back wages due to the petitioner from the date of his termination till rejoining 30.12.1981 to 14.8.87 within 90 days from receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the respondent shall also extend the benefits of subsequent revised pay scales along-with other consequential benefits to the petitioner as admissible under the Rules applicable to the Class-IV employees of the State Government. No order as costs.Writ Petitioner Dismissed. *******