Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 85 (RAJ)

Nathi Devi Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2022-01-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(a) The order dated 23.1.2002 i.e. Ex.7 and 18.6.2002 i.e. Ex.8 are be quashed. (b) The Respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the office of Respondent No. 4. (c) The Respondent No. 5 be directed to sent the Petitioner as and when the Respondent No. 4 required.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 01.07.1988, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 4 as a Class IV employee on temporary basis in pay scale of Rs. 750-865 and subsequently, vide order dated 24.12.1988, the petitioner was continued in service; thereafter, she was confirmed in service as a Class IV employee by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 16.11.1996. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at a later stage, the respondent No. 4, vide order dated 21.12.2001, retrenched the petitioner, along with other Class IV employees and Lower Division Clerks, from service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 05.02.1999 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal Nos. 5476-5483 of 1998), 1999 (2) SCC 317 , wherein it was observed thus: “........the appointment letters clearly go to show that the petitioners were appointed as temporary LDC/Class IV employees for a period of six months or date of expiry of the posts whichever was earlier. The footnotes inserted in the letter of appointment stated that the appointment was purely temporary and the services of the agency were not transferable in any other department of the Government though the period of appointment would be extended after putting in satisfactory service during the period of initial appointment i.e. six months. Such appointments are extended from time to time but on similar terms and conditions. ........In its concern for the employees, the court directed the State of Rajasthan to examine the possibility of absorption of the petitioners if necessary by shifting them to other DRDAs and to indicate a scheme/roster for absorption/ appointment. Such appointments are extended from time to time but on similar terms and conditions. ........In its concern for the employees, the court directed the State of Rajasthan to examine the possibility of absorption of the petitioners if necessary by shifting them to other DRDAs and to indicate a scheme/roster for absorption/ appointment. The Court also at one stage adjourned the hearing in these matters to enable the respondent state to frame a scheme, if any, so as to absorb the petitioners. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-State on 6.10.1998 Setting out the relevant facts and circumstances and explaining why the posts earlier held by the petitioners were abolished and how and why presently there were no posts available against which the petitioners could be accommodated or absorbed.” Learned counsel also submits that in compliance of the aforementioned judgment, the respondent No. 1, on 26.12.2001, ordered that those (daily rated employees) retrenched from service be treated as being in continuous service and respondent No. 1 vide order dated 02.01.2002 addressed to the respondents No. 2 and 3 directed that such employees were to be absorbed into the services of Panchayats/Local Bodies, against the vacant posts. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that subsequently, vide order dated 23.01.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2, while declaring the petitioner as a retrenched employee, directed her to report in the of fice of Collector. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, vide order dated 18.06.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was absorbed to work under the respondent No. 5 as a Class IV employee. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that an order transferring the services of the petitioner, followed by the absorption, so as to made her to work under respondent No. 5, is not in accordance with the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, prays that the petitioner be reinstated, with all consequential benefits, under the services of respondent No. 4 itself. 8. 8. In the support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2018 SC 233 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, at Para-4 of the judgment, relied upon the ratio decidendi in the judgments of: (i) Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Others AIR 2006 SC 1806 (ii) B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676 (iii) R.N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah, AIR 1972 SC 1767 (iv) State of Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 The Hon'ble Apex Court, at Para-8 of the said judgment, observed the following: “8.......We regretfully make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1) (d) of the Constitution of India.......In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew this Court's attention to the judgment dated 16.11.2016, rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (D.B. Special Appeal No. 604/2008), while submitting that in the said case, the Hon'ble Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, had directed the respondents therein to treat the appellant in the said case as a Class IV employee appointed in regular pay scale from the date of appointment. In the said case, the petition was decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench in light of the judgment rendered in Rajendra Singh (supra) holding that the petitioner therein was a retrenched employee and that the respondents were right in directing the retrenchment of the petitioner, in the given circumstances. 10. In the said case, the petition was decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench in light of the judgment rendered in Rajendra Singh (supra) holding that the petitioner therein was a retrenched employee and that the respondents were right in directing the retrenchment of the petitioner, in the given circumstances. 10. Learned counsel also submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench in the said judgment, while setting aside the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Single Bench challenged therein, also observed that it was inappropriate to treat the petitioner therein at par with other retrenched employees, to whom the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Rajendra Singh (supra) relates. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, also submits that the petitioner had completed a long service of about nine years, as is evident from order dated 28.03.1998 and had qualified as a permanent employee of the respondent No. 4, and therefore, the transfer of services of the petitioner to the office of respondent No. 5 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents though opposes aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, but is unable to refute the same. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited above whereby a coherent and clear view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for making interference under the writ jurisdiction. 14. Thus, in view of the above, while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.01.2002 and 18.06.2002, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as Class IV employee and pay her minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of appointment. 15. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.