BRAJESH CHANDRA VYAS Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court with the prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing permanent absorption on the post of Gram Sevak cum Group Secretary as per the notification dated 14.11.2000. The petitioner has cited the example of Dharam Chand Jain, who was so appointed by order dated 18.4.2000, Bal Kishan Sharma by order dated 8.3.2001. Roop Chand and Kishan Chandra have filed writ petition and whose writ petitions were allowed by judgement dated 5.5.2008 and 19.8.2008 respectively. Petitioner has also relied on the judgement of this Court dated 13.9.2011 by which a bunch of writ petitions were allowed and main judgement was rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No., 5040/2011, Kiran Kumar Sharma vs. State & Anr. directing the respondents to grant regular pay scale to the Gram Sevak cum Group Secretary on completion of two years from the date of initial appointment in view of the division bench judgement of this Court in Prashant Bohra vs. State -2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) 264. On a pointed query to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it was given out that petitioner has not been engaged ever since 2001 although he was entitled to be appointed and permanently absorbed on the basis of notification dated 14.11.2000. This would mean that petitioner is not serving the respondents for last 11 years. Even the writ petitions filed by Roop Chand and Kishan Chand whose examples have been given, were filed way back in 2005. The direction for absorption cannot be straight away given. Unless the petitioner is in service and actively working with the respondents, his case for absorption cannot be considered. It is not clear from the petition if at all he was engaged and as to when he was discontinued. The petition besides being vague, suffers from delay and latches.

(2.) THE writ petition is dismissed accordingly.