HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13049/2021

Arvind Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Valdara,

Ahore, Jalore.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Secondary

Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

2.

The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),

Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sushil Solanki

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

22/09/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands resolved in

view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court at

Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2963/2007 (Gopal

Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 29^th July,

2015, holding thus :

“32. In the present case, no material has been placed

before us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply

that the probationers, during the period of their

probation, do not perform the same duties and

responsibilities and are not required to carry out the

same functions as confirmed employees.

33. We find the practice of payment of fixed

remuneration without any allowances and benefit of

increments to the probationers, who were appointed

after adopting the regular selection process, on

(2 of 3)

[CW-13049/2021]

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,

to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pernicious

practice of forced labour.

34. We find no justification for the State Government,

to adopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to

the probationers, which is not prevalent, either in the

Central Government, or in any other States in the

country. The Government of Rajasthan has adopted

this evil practice of forced labour for its employees,

taking advantage of the attraction of the Government

service. The Notifications dated 13.03.2006,

amending the Rules, are thus, declared to be

unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21,

23 and 38 of the Constitution of India, and against

the conscience of the Constitution of India.

35. The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated

13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951, and the Notification of the same date i.e.

13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Civil

Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixed

remuneration to probationer trainees, are hereby

quashed. The State-respondents are directed to pay

the entire differential amount of regular pay scale and

allowances to the petitioner, after deducting the

amount of fixed remuneration paid to him during the

period of probation.”

In case, the claim of the petitioner is found to be covered by

the adjudication referred to hereinabove; the petitioner be also

allowed the same benefits.

Needless to observe that the rights of the parties would be

governed by the final adjudication on SLP pending before the Apex

(3 of 3)

[CW-13049/2021]

Court of the land wherein judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat

(supra), is under challenge.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29^th July,

2015, in the case of Gopal Kumawat (supra).

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the

period of probation; subject to adjudication on the SLP pending

before the Apex Court of the land which would govern the rights of

the parties.

Before conferring actual benefits, it shall be required of the

respondents to procure an undertaking from the petitioner to the

effect that his rights/entitlements shall be subservient to the fate

of the SLP pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in case

the Division Bench is reversed or modified in any manner, he shall

be liable for restitution of any benefits/emoluments so received.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

40-A.Arora/-