Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2128 (RAJ)

Har Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-07

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present batch of petitions has been filed by the petitioners who are working as Teacher Grade-III in different schools. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of regularizing their services which they had rendered earlier and further, the period, spent on probation from initial date of appointment, is sought to be counted in respect of the benefits, which they derived on appointment subsequently on the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners have also prayed for protection of their pay in terms of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that initially the Principal Seat at Jodhpur decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12846/2017 Dhanraj Meena Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. & other connected writ petitions vide common order dated 15.01.2018 directed that the benefits were required to be conferred to the candidates who had approached the Court. This Court deems it appropriate to quote the relevant para of the order dated 15.01.2018 passed in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), is reproduced 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. 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." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after passing of the judgment in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), the State Government itself issued a circular dated 09.08.2018 and guidelines have been issued to follow the directions given in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra). 4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15411/2018 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ petitions has decided the controversy again on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government on 09.08.2018. The order passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is reproduced as under:- "Pursuant thereto, vide Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex. and other connected writ petitions has decided the controversy again on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government on 09.08.2018. The order passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is reproduced as under:- "Pursuant thereto, vide Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex. R/1), the respondents have decided not to challenge the order (supra) and have issued guidelines for following the directions in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra)/Virender Singh (supra), while suspending the Circulars dated 2.9.15 and 4.12.2017. In view of the fact that the circulars, which have been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, already stand superseded by order dated 9.8.2018 (Annex. R/1) and essentially the relief as prayed has been granted by the respondents, the petitions to that extent have been rendered infructuous. However, in view of the fact that in case of Dhanraj Meena (supra)/Virender Singh (supra), the candidates had not resigned and they were relieved under the directions of the Court and the present petitioners had resigned from previous service, their cases are sought to be distinguished. Such distinction is contrary to the express provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:- Rule 25. Forfeiture of service on resignation. (1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies. (3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time admissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government service on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him. A bare look at sub-Rule 2 of Rule 25 reveals that even if a resignation is given to take up with proper permission, another appointment under the Government, where the service qualifies, the same does not entail forfeiture of past service and in those circumstances, the stand sought to be taken by the respondents on account of the resignations given by the petitioners, cannot be sustained. Even in cases, where it is submitted that permission was not taken, in view of the fact that the Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.-R/1) does not make any distinction in the case of resignation and as the petitioners instead of approaching the Court as in the case of Dhanraj Meena & Ors. (supra) were forced to resign, they cannot be discriminated. So far as the fact that in cases where permission was granted to the petitioners indicating restrictions is concerned, as the restrictions indicated are de hors the Rules and specifically Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996, cannot take away the benefits of the petitioners as conferred under the statute. In view of the above factual and legal position, merely on account of petitioners have tendered resignation, they cannot be deprived of the benefit of counting of their past services. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to same relief as granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra)/Virender Singh (supra) as per Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex. R/1). Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of two months from today. No costs." 5. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, G.C. and Mr. Bharat Saini, Addl. G.C. submitted that in fact the present petitions should be rendered infructuous, as the State Government itself has issued the circular dated 09.08.2018 providing guidelines for following the directions given in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the State Government has decided to implement the order passed in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), no adjudication is required in the present batch of writ petitions. 6. This Court finds that initially in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) and subsequently in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), this Court had allowed the petitions and relief granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) and as per circular dated 09.08.2018, has been extended to the persons who approached this Court. 7. 6. This Court finds that initially in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) and subsequently in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), this Court had allowed the petitions and relief granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) and as per circular dated 09.08.2018, has been extended to the persons who approached this Court. 7. This Court, following the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, also deems it appropriate to dispose of the present batch of writ petitions by giving directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for entitlement of relief, as has been granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) and further in accordance with the circular dated 09.08.2018 issued by the State Government. 8. This Court also makes it clear that if the petitioners had tendered resignation, they shall not be deprived of counting of their past service, as has been ordered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). 9. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions stand disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition.