Employees transitioning between government bodies retain prior service benefits under applicable employment rules, as established in precedent.

Order

23/07/2025

1. The present petitioner was appointed as Senior Teacher Social Science vide appointment order dated 03.10.2023. Prior to the said appointment, the petitioner was working with the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) as a Commercial Assistant-

II with effect from 15.02.2019.

2. After being selected with the present respondent Department, he resigned from the AVVNL specifically submitting the fact of his being appointed with the respondent Department. The said resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the AVVNL on 18.12.2023 with effect from 18.12.2023. The petitioner thus prayed for grant of regular pay scale and benefits of the service which he rendered in the earlier Department but the same was rejected on the premise that AVVNL, the organization with which the petitioner was earlier working is not governed by the State laws and it is not a body governed by the State. The claim of the petitioner was rejected only on this sole ground and no other ground.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that JVVNL is by all means a government undertaking and has relied upon the judgment passed in Pooja Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2017) decided on 18.12.2017.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio as laid down in Pooja Bhati’s case (supra) would not apply to the present matter. The same was a matter pertaining to fresh recruitment whereas in the present matter, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of his earlier services. Secondly, the petitioner has joined the respondent Department after resignation from his earlier Department and not after simply being relieved by the earlier Department.

5. In Pooja Bhati’s case (supra) also, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with the issue as to whether JVVNL is a Department of the Government or not. After an elaborate discussion of the earlier precedents, the Court reached to the following conclusion:

“Thus, this Court finds that the Nigam is not a body so separate or so independent so as to have individual impact on its employees altogether. Rather the legislative intention is clearly for providing the preference to the ministerial staff of the Department of Government of Rajasthan to include such employees who are discharging the duties of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. The precedent law does not apply in the present case as the Vinay Mohan Kiradoo (supra) is dealing with the category change and cannot have any bearing in the present case and the case of Dhirendra Sharma (supra) is only dealing with the applicability of Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 which cannot have any bearing in the present case.

38. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to give 12.5% reservation to the petitioners for the appointment to the post of Junior Accountant under the Rules of 1963 treating the Nigam to be a Department of Government in light of the Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule

6 of the Rules of 1963.

6. In view of the above ratio, this Court cannot defer from the opinion that AVVNL is a Department of the Government and therefore, has to be governed by the Rules governing employees of a Government Department. Further the appointment order itself of the present petitioner had a specific clause which reads as under:

“tks vH;FkÊ iwoZ ls gh fu;fer jkT; lsok esa dk;Zjr gS mUgas jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj gh osru HkÙks n;s gkaxs sa ijUrq inLFkkiu ij dk;Zxzg.k ds le; iwoZ fu;kts d ds }kjk mfpr ekè;e (Through Proper Channel) ls dk;Zeqä fd;s tku s dk vkn's k ,o a xr Hkqxrku çek.k i= Hkh çLrqr djuk gkxs kA”

7. A bare perusal of the above