Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 421 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2021-02-18

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS, SABINA

body2021
ORDER : 1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 7.9.2012, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in restricting payment of minimum wages to the appellant from the date of judgment. In-fact, the appellant was required to be paid minimum wages from the date of his initial appointment. 3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellant was merely working on part-time basis. 4. The case of the appellant, in brief, as per writ petition was that he was initially appointed on the post of Tahluaa/Pujari/Sevagir vide order dated 12.5.1986 and since then he was performing his duties as Pujari. However, despite several representations, the appellant had not been granted minimum pay-scale and the appellant was liable to be considered on the post of Pujari in terms of Rule 6(1) proviso (iii) of the Rajasthan Devasthan State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2000'). 5. As per Annexure-1 dated 12.5.1986 attached to the writ petition, appellant was appointed as part-time Tahluaa. Appellant made representations for grant of regular pay-scale. From time to time, recommendations were also made by the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant was working for the whole day and should be granted regular pay-scale. 6. The appellant had based reliance on Rule 6 of the Rules of 2000. The rule 6 of the Rules of 2000, reads as under: "6. Method of Recruitment.-(1) Recruitment to post(s) in the service after the commencement of these Rules shall be made by the following methods if proportion as indicated in columns 3 and 4 of Schedule I and Schedule II as the case may be; (a) by direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Part IV of these rules; (b) by promotion in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Part V of these rules. Provided that: (i) ....... (ii) ....... Provided that: (i) ....... (ii) ....... (iii) the persons not covered by Rule 5 who were appointed to the post(s) include in Schedule I and Schedule II on ad hoc or officiating or urgent temporary basis and who have been continuously holding such post(s) for at least one year on the date of commencement of these rules shall be screened by the committee referred to in Rule 27 for adjudging their suitability on the post(s) held, if they possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in these rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification on the basis of which such person(s) were selected for ad hoc/officiating/urgent temporary appointment. This, provision shall be subject to the following conditions viz.- (a) a person appointed on ad hoc officiating urgent temporary basis shall not be entitled to screening for a post higher than that to which he was initially appointed, if a person senior to him on a lower post who fulfilled qualifications prescribed for the post was either not given such ad hoc appointment or is not entitled to screening under this rule. Seniority for this purpose shall be determined according to length of continuous service on the post; (b) the committee appointed under these rules for adjudging suitability screening either as an exception to general methods of recruitment or as initial constitution of service may ex-gratia recommend. If any of the employees with more than three years of service on a post for which he is to be screened is not adjudged suitable and if thereafter has no right to be appointed on a lower post or such lower post being offered to him by absorption and thereupon such an employee shall be treated as surplus employee under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 and such employee may be absorbed on the lower post on the recommendations of such committee subject to the conditions as may be laid down by it. Note:- The provisions of screening under proviso (iii) above has been intended to be first step and after exhausting the vacancies required for screened person(s) irrespective of direct recruitment and promotion quota, the direct recruitment and promotion quota, shall be applied." 7. Note:- The provisions of screening under proviso (iii) above has been intended to be first step and after exhausting the vacancies required for screened person(s) irrespective of direct recruitment and promotion quota, the direct recruitment and promotion quota, shall be applied." 7. Considering the above rule, the learned Single Judge held that the case of the appellant be considered by the respondents in terms of Rules of 2000 and he be granted necessary benefits, in case he was otherwise found to be qualified and eligible and if there was nothing adverse existing against the appellant. It was further observed that, in-case, the benefit of pay-scale was denied to the appellant in terms of rule 6 of the Rules of 2000, then the appellant was entitled to be granted minimum wages from the date of passing of the judgment. While restricting claim for minimum wages, it has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had filed the writ petition in the year 2010 and had been appointed only part-time basis, therefore, payment of minimum wages to the appellant would be from the date of passing of the judgment. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had rightly restricted the claim of payment of minimum wages to the appellant from the date of the judgment as the appellant was appointed on part-time basis vide order dated 12.5.1986. 9. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that in terms of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the services of the appellant have been regularized by the respondents vide order dated 16.10.2014 on the post of Sevagir with effect from 7.9.2012. The appellant was to be given minimum wages only, in-case, benefit of regularization was declined, however, the services of the appellant have been regularized. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 10. Dismissed.