Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1621 (RAJ)

Laxmi Narayan Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-01

P.K. LOHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking implementation of the directions issued by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 684/2004 and the stipulation made in order dated 24.02.2005 (Annex.3) passed by the respondents. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed vide order dated 05.09.2003 (Annex.1) on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade- III. However, the petitioners were not permitted to join at their respective place of posting and, therefore, writ petitions were filed by the petitioners. The writ petitions came to be allowed by learned Single Judge on 20.02.2004. Feeling aggrieved the State filed appeals and in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 684/2004 State of Raj. vs. Javed Akhtar and Ors., and other connected appeals which included appeals pertaining to the petitioners, by order dated 25.11.2004, it was directed as under:- "Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals are dismissed on merit. The respondent-petitioners shall be allowed to join on their respective place of postings as per their appointments letters. However, the respondents shall be entitled to actual emoluments of the post only with effect from the date when they actually join their duties, but for the purpose of seniority and other benefits, they shall not be placed at lesser advantageous position than those who have been allowed to join their duties in pursuance of the order issued initially in pursuance of the same selections. The respondents/petitioners shall be allowed to join by 7th December, 2004 and if they do not join by 7 th December, 2004 their services shall automatically be terminated according to appointment orders. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench the respondents issued order dated 24.02.2005 according appointment to the petitioners and it was further stipulated in the order as under:- ^^bUgsa fnukad 10-03-2005 rd inLFkkfir LFkku ij dk;Zxzg.k djuk gksxk] vU;Fkk ;g inLFkkiu vkns'k Lor% gh fujLr le>k tk;sxkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj mDr vH;FkhZ dk;Zxzg.k djus dh frfFk ls okLrfod inykHk ÁkIr djus ds gdnkjh gksxs ijUrq ofj"Brk lEc/kh ,oa vU; ykHk iwoZ esa ftyk vkns'k ekuuh;&ÁFke HkhyokMk }kjk tkjh fu;qfDr vkns'k 2063 fnukad 05-09-2003 dh ikyuk esa inLFkkfir vH;fFkZ;ksa ds leku ÁkIr djsaxsA** 4. A perusal of the stipulation in the order dated 24.02.2005 would indicate that the said order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench, whereby it was indicated that petitioners would be entitled to seniority and other benefits as granted to the appointees under order dated 05.09.2003. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite specific stipulation in the judgment of the Division Bench as well as the appointment order dated 24.02.2005 the petitioners are being deprived of the benefit of similar treatment as granted to the appointees under order dated 05.09.2003 specifically pertaining to Pension Scheme and ACP. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances this Court in the case of Madusudan vs. State of Raj. & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9512/2011 decided on 08.11.2013 has held that the petitioners would be entitled to similar treatment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it was, inter alia, submitted that the petitioners were granted appointment vide order dated 24.02.2005 and would be governed by the provisions as they stood on 24.02.2005 as by then Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005 had come into force and, therefore, the petitioners cannot seek applicability of provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 merely because the recruitment pertain to a period prior to coming in force of the Contributory Pension Rules, 2005 and, therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 8. The objection of delay and laches raised on behalf of respondent State is not sustainable in the present case. Being appellant in D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 684/2004 - State of Raj. Vs. Javed Akhtar and Ors., State cannot be allowed to raise such plea for its inaction in implementing the verdict. Moreover, the benefits flowing from the verdict of Division Bench are furnishing recurring cause of action to the petitioners. Welfare State is not expected to implement a judgment selectively for grant of relief while ignoring claims of similarly circumstanced employees. Therefore, objection of the respondents is overruled. 9. Moreover, the benefits flowing from the verdict of Division Bench are furnishing recurring cause of action to the petitioners. Welfare State is not expected to implement a judgment selectively for grant of relief while ignoring claims of similarly circumstanced employees. Therefore, objection of the respondents is overruled. 9. A bare look at the order passed by the Division Bench while rejecting the appeal filed by the State would reveal that a specific direction was given that the petitioners would be permitted to join on their respective place of postings; would be entitled to actual emoluments of post only with effect from the date when they actually join their duties, but for the purpose of seniority and other benefits, they shall not be placed at lesser advantageous position than those who have been allowed to join their duties in pursuance of the order issued initially in pursuance of the same selections. The said stipulation as indicated in the order of Division Bench was clearly reflected in the order of appointment dated 24.02.2005, wherein it was indicated that the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits including the benefits pertaining to seniority and other benefits as granted to appointees under Order dated 05.09.2003. In view of specific direction by the Division Bench and the stipulation made in the order of appointment, there does not appear to be any reason for the respondents to treat the petitioners different from the appointees under order dated 05.09.2003, who admittedly are governed by provisions of Pension Rules, 1996. 10. The submission that as the petitioners joined post after coming into force of Contributory Pension Rules, 2005, therefore, they would not be entitled to relief, in view of the specific directions of the Division Bench and stipulation made in the order dated 24.02.2005 such a submission is wholly baseless. 11. This Court in the case of Madusudan (supra) while dealing with a similar nature controversy held as under:- "It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was also granted seniority as well as other benefits from the year 1998-1999. 11. This Court in the case of Madusudan (supra) while dealing with a similar nature controversy held as under:- "It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was also granted seniority as well as other benefits from the year 1998-1999. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated person - Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme, however, the petitioner has not been granted the said benefits only for the reason that the appointment was granted to him in the year 2005. When the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy in the year 1998-1999 and was also assigned seniority from the year 1998-1999, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of the old pension scheme to the petitioner applicable is not tenable. It is also noticed that when the similarly situated person was granted the said benefit, though appointed after the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents are not justifying in denying the said benefit to the petitioner. 12. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the petitioner as per old pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 13. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. with other connected petitions, allowed the writ petitions in terms of the judgment of Division Bench in Javed Akhtar (supra) as under: "In view of above discussions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits including benefit of Pension Rules, 1996 and ACP with all consequential benefits to the petitioners as indicated in the order passed by the Division Bench and order dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-6). 14. The exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. 15. No order as to costs."As the present petition is squarely covered by the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9695/2014 (Durga Ram Jat Vs. 14. The exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. 15. No order as to costs."As the present petition is squarely covered by the decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9695/2014 (Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), it is also allowed in terms thereof.