Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA
Dhool Singh, S/o. Shri Mangi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
(ARUN MONGA, J.)
1. Petitioners herein have been in and out of the Court having been made to indulge in multiple foray of lis, as would borne of from narrative hereinafter. Since above titled bunch of petitions involve common issues/questions based on similar facts, they are being decided through this common order.
CASE SET UP BY THE PETITIONERS
2. The brief facts first. For brevity, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6545/2017 are being taken into consideration. The petitioners inter-alia seek quashing of an order dated 23.02.2017 (Annex.21), vide which, their candidature for absorption as Store Munshi was rejected by the committee formed for this purpose. The petitioners also seek command to the respondents to provide the post of Store Munshi as per their seniority and thereafter grant benefit of semi-permanent status on the said post.
3. Petitioners were initially employed as Beldar/Chowkidar/ Road Mistri/ Godami/Store Attendant on work charge basis w.e.f. from their respective dates of appointment (as detailed specifically in later part). They are discharging the functions on the post of Store Munshi since their initial appointment. They possess the requisite qualification
The denial of semi-permanent and permanent status to eligible work-charged employees based on arbitrary committee decisions violates constitutional principles of equality and fair treatment in employ....
The court ruled that arbitrary rejection of absorption applications based on age and literacy violates constitutional rights, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the court/tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary appointees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee ....
Lengthy service by an employee on ad-hoc basis, when performed against a sanctioned post, must be counted towards seniority and benefits, ensuring equitable treatment in state employment.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the divisional seniority list and held that the termination of the Respondents was in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Discrimination in employment violates Article 14; individuals in similar situations must be treated equally.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
