The payment of fixed remuneration to probationers, who were appointed after adopting the regular selection process, on substantive posts, or even after following the selection process on ad hoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointed on substantive posts, is wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious practice of forced labour.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, appointed as Lower Division Clerk(LDC) in the Office of the Public Health & Engineering Department, vide Office Order dated 03.06.2006, by the Chief Engineer (Rural), Public Health & Engineering Department, Rajasthan, on probation, has prayed for quashing the Notification dated 13.03.2006, notifying the Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006, to come into force with effect from 20.01.2006, issued by the then Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of its powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by which it is provided that all the Government servants appointed on or after 20.01.2006, on probation, as probationer-trainee, for a period of two years, will be paid fixed remuneration at such rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time, and further that after successful completion of probation training, he/she will be allowed minimum pay in the pay scale of the post, and that the period of probation training shall not be counted for grant of annual grade increments. The amendment of the Rules also took away the benefit of leave during the period of probation, except for female probationer-trainees, who are provided to be granted maternity leave as per Rules 103 and 104 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

2. The writ petition was filed on 24.01.2007, and was directed to be listed after four weeks on 04.05.2007. On 30.07.2007, the notices were issued to the respondents. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Additional GA, present in the Court, was directed to accept notice. On 09.08.2007, two weeks time was allowed to the respondents for filing reply. A reply was filed on 16.05.2008, after which the the matter has remained pending for last seven years. It was listed before a learned Single Judge on 24.09.2014, who found that since the vires of the Rules is under challenge, in view of Rule 55(xi) of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, the matter requires to be heard by the Division Bench.

3. The State counsel has not cared to appear in the Court despite the names of the Counsels shown in the cause list. Since the matter is an old matter, and in which a counter affidavit has been filed, we are proceeding to decide it on merits.

4. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner's father died in harness in May, 1970. He applied for appointment on compassionate ground. His application was kept pending for a long period of time, on which he filed Writ Petition No.6404/1992, seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975. On 07.01.1998, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to consider the claim of the petitioner. A D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.371/1998, filed against the order dated 07.01.1998, was dismissed on 22.10.2002, and on which, the respondents approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed on 17.04.2003. After a long delay of three years, an appointment letter was issued on 03.06.2006, by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk, on probation, on a consolidated salary of Rs.3000/-per month only. A reference was made in the letter of appointment about the Notification dated 13.03.2006, issued by the Finance Department(Rules Division), Government of Rajasthan, under which the petitioner was to be provided with consolidated salary of Rs.3000/-per month on two years probation.

5. The petitioner challenged the Notification dated 13.03.2006, by which the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, were amended, vide the Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006, and by which, item (iv) below the existing item (iii) of sub-clause (a) of Rule 7; a new Rule 8; a new clause (30A) below the existing clause (30) of Rule 7; a new Provisos