Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2538 (RAJ)

Punit Kumar Punjot v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-29

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for consideration of the past services rendered by the petitioner as a probationer on the post of Hostel Superintendent Grade-II prior to his appointment with the Panchayati Raj Department as Gramsevak-cum-Panchayat Sachiv. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.09.2016 vide which the recruitment process for both the 'Gramsevak-cum-Panchayat Sachiv' and 'Hostel Superintendent Grade-II' was taken up. At the first instance, the petitioner was selected as 'Hostel Superintendent Grade-II' as per his merit and he joined the Social Welfare Department in pursuance to the appointment letter issued to him. Later in the year 2018, because of upgradation, the petitioner was selected to be appointed with the Panchayati Raj Department as 'Gramsevak-cum-Panchayat Sachiv' as per his merit. Thereafter, the petitioner got a No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 16.04.2018 from his parent department i.e. the Social Welfare Department and in pursuance to the NOC, he was relieved on 03.01.2019 and joined the Panchayati Raj Department on 11.01.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Panchayati Raj Department has not granted him the benefits for which he is entitled from the date of his initial appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he joined the Panchayati Raj Department after a valid NOC issued by the Social Welfare Department and in pursuance to the appointment order issued by the Panchayati Raj Department itself. It has further been submitted that the appointment of the petitioner with the Panchayati Raj Department was not in pursuance to any fresh recruitment process but was only a consequence of the upgradation by the department arising out of the same recruitment process taken up in the year 2016. Therefore, petitioner's appointment with the Panchayati Raj Department cannot be termed to be a fresh appointment and consequently, all the service benefits ought to be granted to him keeping into consideration his initial date of appointment with the Social Welfare Department. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the initial date of appointment of the petitioner for consideration of service benefits could have been considered only if the petitioner had joined the Panchayati Raj Department after legally resigning from the Social Welfare Department and after legally being relieved by the Social Welfare Department. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the initial date of appointment of the petitioner for consideration of service benefits could have been considered only if the petitioner had joined the Panchayati Raj Department after legally resigning from the Social Welfare Department and after legally being relieved by the Social Welfare Department. Learned counsel submitted that the NOC as issued by the Social Welfare Department was only for the purposes of document verification and not for joining with the Panchayati Raj Department. He further submitted that the order dated 03.01.2019 is not a relieving order and there is no document on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever relieved by his parent department. Learned counsel relied upon Rule 25 of the Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') wherein it has been provided that the past services of an employee would not be forfeited only if he has taken up services with another department with proper permission from his parent department. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under: - "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 servant 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 perusal of Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996 makes it clear that the only requirement to save the forfeiture of past service is that an employee ought to have joined with the subsequent department after obtaining a proper permission. The relevant portion of NOC as issued by the Social Welfare Department to the petitioner reads as under:- foHkkx esa dk;Zjr fuEufyf[kr Nk=kokl v/kh{kd Js.kh& II dks fofHkUu ijh{kkvksa@nLrkostksa dk lR;kiu ds fy;s vukifRr izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh budk p;u gks tkus ij foHkkx dks dk;ZeqDr djus esa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 6. The above NOC, in unequivocal terms, states that the Social Welfare Department would have no objection in relieving the petitioner if he is selected on any other post. In the opinion of this Court, the said NOC is definitely a 'proper permission' in compliance of Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996. Rule 25 nowhere speaks of any resignation or relieving order to be issued prior to a fresh appointment with any other Government Department. Rather Rule 25(1) envisage to the contrary that resignation from service or a post would conclude into the forfeiture of past service. Furthermore, the office order dated 03.01.2019 issued by the Social Welfare Department also clarifies that the issuing authority was well within the knowledge that a valid NOC has been issued to the petitioner to join with the Panchayati Raj Department as Gramsevak-cum-Panchayat Sachiv. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be concluded that the petitioner joined the Panchayati Raj Department without a proper permission from his parent department. 7. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondent Panchayati Raj Department is directed to consider the past services of the petitioner rendered with the Social Welfare Department as Hostel Superintendent Grade-II for the purposes of all future service benefits which he is entitled to. The appropriate proceedings be taken up within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the present order. 8. All the pending applications stand disposed of.