1999 Supreme(Raj) 930
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Shivnarain Singh Hada - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3547 of 1994.
Decided On : 17-02-1999
Parallel remedies for the same subject matter cannot be allowed, and concealment of material facts in a writ petition can lead to its dismissal.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - REGULARISATION OF SERVICE - RAJASTHAN WORK CHARGED SERVICE RULES, 1958 - RULE 3(3) - TRANSFER - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASS III) RULES, 1954 - RULE 16 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 - PARALLEL REMEDIES - WRIT PETITION AND CIVIL SUIT - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT, HIGHLIGHTING KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, THEIR INTERPRETATIONS, AND HOW THEY INFLUENCED THE COURT'S DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Helper on daily wages in 1980, claimed to have been performing the duties of a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) since 1982, but was not regularized or paid the wages of the LDC post. He filed a writ petition seeking regularization, payment of wages, and quashing of a transfer order. The respondents contended that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization as he was not selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and that the writ petition was not maintainable due to parallel proceedings in a civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed the fact of the pending civil suit from the court and that the writ petition and the civil suit involved the same subject matter. The court held that parallel remedies for the same subject matter cannot be allowed and that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing material facts.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization on the post of LDC despite not being selected by the RPSC? 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the parallel proceedings in the civil suit? 3. Whether the petitioner's concealment of the civil suit amounted to suppression of material facts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization on the post of LDC as he was not selected by the RPSC, as required under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Class III) Rules, 1954, Rule 16. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 SC 898, and the Division Bench of this Court's decision in Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR page 610, to hold that parallel remedies for the same subject matter cannot be allowed. 3. The court held that the petitioner's failure to disclose the pending civil suit in the writ petition amounted to suppression of material facts, which warranted dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of parallel proceedings and concealment of material facts.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 26, 1994 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Negadia, whereby the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner also makes prayer seeking issuance of direction in the name of respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of LDC and to make payment of the wages of the said post from January 1980 with all consequential benefits.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on January 27. 1980 he came to be appointed by the respondents on the post of Helper. Since the petitioner was literate person having Higher Secondary School Certificate the respondents started taking work of the post of L.D.C. On March 31, 1982 the Assistant Engineer, Deoli issued an office order directing the petitioner that in addition to his own duties he will also extend his duties as Cashier cum Clerk. This was done with a view to improve the working of the establishment. In pursuance of this order temporary identity card was also issued to him as he was required to deal with cash in Rank. Again on January 27, 1983 the petitioner was required to prepare and deal with T.A. Bills, Medical Bills etc. with one Devkishan Sharma, who was nominated to perform the duties of Cashier. In this way the petitioner was assigned the duties of Clerk, which he discharged efficiently, diligently and satisfactorily. The Assistant Engineer issued certificates from time depicting satisfactory working of the petitioner. Six of such certificates have been annexed with the writ petition. On Jan. 13, 1992 the Assistant Engineer issued another order whereby Shankar Lal Meena working as Clerk in Establishment Section was required to give charge to the petitioner and in pursuance of the said order the charge of establishment section was handed over to the petitioner. Though the petitioner was discharging the duties of the post of Clerk right from the year 1980 but the pay of the said post was not given to him. On April 30, 1984 an application was submitted by the petitioner requesting that he may be paid the wages of the post of clerk as he was discharging the duties of the said post continuously and he may also be regularised on the said post. Copy of the application has also been annexed with the writ petition. Thereafter on May 26, 1994 an order was issued by the Assistant Engineer whereby the petitioner was ordered to be transferred. Copy of the said order was not handed over to the petitioner nor he was relieved from the said post. The petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition has incorporated the order dated May 26, 1994.
3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition with the averments that the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of L.D.C. as he is not eligible for the said post. The petitioner was given appointment as Helper on daily wages basis w.e.f. January 27, 1980 and thereafter on completion of two years service he was declared semi permanent in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Work Charged Service Rules vide order dated May 4, 1984. The pay fixations of the petitioner were carried out accordingly. Pursuant to the order dated May 4, 1984 the petitioner has already received the benefits and he did not raise any protest against the order dated May 4, 1984 or agitated the matter before the appropriate forum but in fact continued to discharge the duties of helper and received the benefits accordingly. Copy of the order dated May 4, 1984 has been produced by the respondents as Annexure R/1. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot be appointed as L.D.C. as he is not selected by the R.P.S.C. The petitioner is guilty of concealment/suppressing the material facts and the petitidn deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents have also annexed the copy of the order dated August 26, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoli District Tonk as well as the copy of the plaint dated June 6, 1994, instituted by the peti
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
