Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2853 (RAJ)

Kishan Chandra Jeengar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-12-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is similar to Tarun Songara v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15127/2022 & other connected matters, decided on 29.11.2022, wherein, similar petitions have been allowed by the Court and, therefore, petitioners are also entitled to similar relief. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said submission. 4. In the case of Tarun Songara (supra), this Court inter alia came to the following conclusion:- 5. "This Court in the case of Manakram (supra), while dealing with the said aspect, inter alia came to the following conclusion:- "A look at the experience certificates filed as Annex.-3 with the contempt petition reveals that the respondents have deducted the 'period of leave without pay' from the period of experience. The notification dated 23.2.2012 issued by the respondents dealing with the period of absence provided for adjustment of leave towards period of absence towards available casual leave and grant of leave without pay for the rest of the period. This Court in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar (supra) has categorically laid down that if the leave is sanctioned one, then during that period too the relationship of master and servant is maintained and the period of availing sanctioned leave, thus, cannot be excluded from the term of continuous service. In view thereof, the exclusion of period by the respondents from grant of experience certificates appears to be contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Reliance placed by the respondents on the circular dated 26.12.2012 providing for non- consideration of period of absence for the purpose of experience, reads as under:- " 8- lafonk dkfeZdksa dks vuqer vkdfLed vodk'k ds vykok vuqifLFkfr vof/k dks vuqHko dh vof/k esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k tkosA " 6. The said instruction deals with 'period of absence' and not with a 'period of sanctioned leave' and therefore, the said circular also has no application to the present case. 7. In view of the discussion here-in-above, it is apparent that the certificates (Annex.3) issued by the respondents are not in accord with the direction dated 3.5.2013 and the law laid down by this Court." 8. The Court after referring to the judgment in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. 7. In view of the discussion here-in-above, it is apparent that the certificates (Annex.3) issued by the respondents are not in accord with the direction dated 3.5.2013 and the law laid down by this Court." 8. The Court after referring to the judgment in the case of Smt. Vishnu Kanwar & 157 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 186 came to the conclusion that if the leave is sanctioned, the said period cannot be excluded from the period of continuous service and after referring to the Circular dated 26.12.2012, came to the conclusion that the said Circular deals with 'period of absence' and not with the 'period of sanctioned leave' and directed that the period of sanctioned leave is required to be included in the period of experience certificate. 9. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in denying to include the period of sanctioned leave for the purpose of experience and thereafter non-issuance of certificate till 18.4.2013, cannot be sustained. 10. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondent - Chief Executive Officer is directed to issue requisite experience certificates to the petitioners for the period till 18.4.2013 after including the 'period of sanctioned leave' for the purpose of experience. 11. It is made clear that the period, during which, the petitioners remained absent and which has not been sanctioned, need not be included in the experience of the petitioners. 12. The requisite certificate be issued to the petitioners within a period of ten days from today. On certificate being issued, the petitioners would be entitled to utilize the same for the purpose of document verification pursuant to the exercise initiated by the respondents by Circular dated 7.9.2022." 13. In view of the submissions made, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed with similar directions as given in the case of Tarun Songara (supra). 14. It is made clear that on issuance of the certificate to the petitioners as directed above, the petitioners would be entitled to utilize the same only at Zila Parishads where they have applied and posts as of today are still vacant in their category. 15. The certificate would not entitle the petitioners to disturb the selection/appointments already made/granted.