Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 698 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Raju Devi

2021-03-25

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. The facts for the present purposes are that the respondent's husband late Mr. Chandra Prakash Rajpurohit (hereinafter referred to as "employee") was a part time cook with the petitionerDepartment. 3. Husband of respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in this Court being SBCWP No.55/1995, inter alia, seeking regularization of his services. Said writ petition came to be decided by this Court, vide order dated 26.05.1995 and a direction was issued to place the employee (petitioner therein) at the lowest of the pay scale payable to a Class IV employee and regularize him in the services. 4. The above referred order dated 26.05.1995 reads thus:- "The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner minimum pay in the lowest pay scale applicable to the post of regular Class IV Servants from the date of filing of the petition and consider regularisation of his services in the light of directions made in order being passed today in S.B.C.W.Petition No.3453/94 (Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State & others), decided on May, 1995. The relief will be given only if the petitioner was in service on the date of filing of the petition. No order as to costs." 5. Against the order aforesaid, the State had preferred an intra-Court appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. The order dated 26.05.1995 thus, attained finality. 6. The employee thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), against non-action of the Department towards his right of regularization and benefit of selection grade. 7. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal on 27.08.2002 with a direction to the employee to file a representation and corresponding direction to the petitioners to decide his representation in accordance with law. 8. When the State still did not pay any heed, the employee approached the Tribunal again and prayed that he be given regular pay scale and other benefits, which flow from his regular status. 9. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the employee vide its order dated 12.12.2017 and held that the employee was entitled for regularization and all consequential benefits including grant of benefit of circular dated 25.01.1992 (for grant of selection grade). 9. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the employee vide its order dated 12.12.2017 and held that the employee was entitled for regularization and all consequential benefits including grant of benefit of circular dated 25.01.1992 (for grant of selection grade). 10. It was also directed by the Tribunal, that in case of failure to make payment of the due amount within three months, interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable. 11. The State has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated 12.12.2017 of the Tribunal. 12. Mr. Bissa, learned Government Counsel argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal, so also contrary to the judgment dated 13.01.2011 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal and Ors (Civil Appeal No.486/2011). 13. Advancing his argument further, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the judgment dated 26.05.1992 passed by this Court in employee's earlier writ petition and highlighted that this Court in the writ petition filed by the employee had issued no direction for regularization and had issued direction only to pay him minimum pay scale, which the State is admittedly paying. 14. He further argued that since this Court while deciding employee's writ petition had not given any direction for regular pay scale or the benefits of selection grade, learned Tribunal could not have issued such direction in an appeal filed by the employee. 15. Learned counsel further argued that employee's writ petition was decided in light of judgment rendered in case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. The State of Rajathan (WP No.3453/1994) and the same has been held to be not a good law. He thus, argued that the adjudication made in employee's favour in light of judgment of this Court in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara (supra) has been impliedly overruled and no relief can be granted to the employee or for that matter to the widow of the deceased employee. 16. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the Tribunal has not committed any error because adjudication made in employee's favour had attained finality as intra-Court appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.05.1995 in employee's favour had been dismissed. 17. 16. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the Tribunal has not committed any error because adjudication made in employee's favour had attained finality as intra-Court appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.05.1995 in employee's favour had been dismissed. 17. Inviting Court's attention towards the direction issued by this Court in judgment dated 26.05.1995, he submitted that there was a clear direction to give regular pay scale to the employee. May be, while deciding the matter, this Court had directed the State to place the employee under minimum of the pay scale, which is available to Class IV employees of the State. 18. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards Annex.R/1/1 and pointed out that the State had sanctioned the post specifically for late Chandra Prakash Rajpurohit, and therefore it cannot be said that the employee was not appointed against the sanctioned post to contend that employee was not entitled for the benefits as has been held by the Tribunal. 19. Heard. 20. In considered opinion of this Court, so far as the rights and fate of the employee are concerned, the same are governed by the adjudication made in his favour, vide judgment dated 26.05.1995. 21. A perusal of the order dated 26.05.1995 reproduced above leaves no manner of doubt that this Court had issued direction to the State to consider his case for regularization. 22. It is noteworthy that the judgment in employee's case was delivered much before the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 23. True it is, that, in the judgment relied upon by the State namely State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal and Ors. the judgment passed by this Court in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara (supra) have been held to be not a good law, but then, if the facts noticed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Lal (supra) are examine carefully, it clearly transpires that the judgment under challenge before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was passed by this Court in the year 2011 relying upon the judgment in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara (supra); whereas the judgment in case of employee was passed on the same date, when this Court had pronounced the judgment in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara (supra). 24. This being the position and considering to the fact that judgment dated 26.05.1995 has attained finality, according to this Court, the State cannot rely upon the adjudication made in the case of Daya Lal (supra) which was pronounced about 16 years' after the adjudication made in employee's favour. 25. That apart, argument vociferously advanced by Mr. Bissa that this Court had not given any direction for regularization and thus, the directions given by the Tribunal are beyond jurisdiction, is factually incorrect. A perusal of the order dated 26.05.1995 leaves no manner of ambiguity that this Court had given direction to the State to regularize employee's services, however as an immediate measure, the State was directed to place the employee under minimum of the pay scale, which is available to a Class IV employee. 26. The State cannot pick a part of the judgment and take a stand that it would continue to pay the same amount to the employee till his superannuation. If stand of the State is accepted, then it would amount to exploitation rather permitting Begar, which is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 27. Furthermore, a perusal of the order dated 17.10.1996 (Annex.R/1/1) clearly depicts that the post was sanctioned for the employee, albeit subject to decision of the special appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.05.1995. 28. Concededly, the intra-Court appeal filed by the State against the order dated 26.05.1996 had been dismissed and thus, the condition appended in the order dated 17.10.1996, while appointing the employee against a sanctioned post lost its effect. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the respondent-employee should be considered to have been appointed against a sanctioned post. 29. This Court is therefore of the considered view that there is no error or infirmity in the order dated 12.12.2017 under consideration passed by the Tribunal. 30. The writ petition therefore fails. 31. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court feels that the stipulation regarding payment of interest at the rate of 9% is slightly on a higher side. In the interest of justice, the same is hereby modified and the rate of interest is reduced to prevailing rate of interest i.e. 6% per annum. 32. State is allowed two months' time to make payment of the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The cost is made easy. 33. In the interest of justice, the same is hereby modified and the rate of interest is reduced to prevailing rate of interest i.e. 6% per annum. 32. State is allowed two months' time to make payment of the amount as per the order of the Tribunal. The cost is made easy. 33. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.