STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AMITABH BOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dtd. 8/9/2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner, by which the petition has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to pass a reasoned order on the prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner for being absorbed on a suitable post in the State Government services. It has further been clarified that if the respondents decide to absorb the petitioner in the State Government services, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix relevant for decision in the present appeal, as contained in the pleadings of the parties is that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Leather) in Rajasthan State Tanneries Limited (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'RSTL'), a Government of Rajasthan undertaking in the year 1982. Later on, an order was passed on 18/6/1987 by which respondent-writ petitioner was sent on deputation under the Department of Industries, Government of Rajasthan against the post of Project Manager (Leather) in the cadre of Assistant Director Industries and posted at District Industries Center, Jaisalmer. While the respondent-writ petitioner was working on deputation, his parent organization RSTL itself was closed and shut down. However, no orders were passed with regard to the fate of the respondent-writ petitioner as to whether he is absorbed in the Government Department or terminated or absorbed in any other State Corporations or any other body. Vide order dtd. 25/6/1991, the deputation of the respondent-writ petitioner was brought to an end and he was directed to join RSTL i.e. his parent organization which was closed. A writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3154/1991 was filed by the respondent-writ petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of deputation. The effect and operation of the order dtd. 25/6/1991 was stayed by the Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, a letter was issued on 7/7/1999 to the respondent-writ petitioner that if he withdraws the petition, his case would be considered for further orders for adjustment (for consideration of his case for absorption under the relevant Rules). As letter indicates it was pursuant to a letter dtd. 21/6/1999 of the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent-writ petitioner in order to explore possibility of settlement and in the hope of getting favorable order from the Government, withdrew his petition vide order dtd. 2/8/1999 the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file if need arises. An order was thereafter passed on 17/5/2002 by which he was ordered to continue on deputation in the Industries Department till attaining the age of superannuation. It was further ordered that contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) which is not being made at that time be deposited by the State Government as per Rule from time to time along with arrears. The pleadings of the parties also reveal that process for amendment of the Rules was also initiated to facilitate absorption of the respondent-writ petitioner in the Industries Department because as per the then existing Rules, an employee of a corporation could not be absorbed in the services of the Industries Department of the State Government. Though, the Rules are said to have been amended in the year 1997, as far as the post of Assistant Director (Leather) is concerned, no benefit was granted because the Rule permitted appointment by promotion and direct recruitment. Therefore, no order of absorption in favour of respondent-writ petitioner was passed. This led the respondent-writ petitioner to file a writ petition for direction to State to absorb him in the State services in the Department of Industries.

(3.) The stand taken by the appellants-respondents in the reply was that the respondent-writ petitioner being an employee of State undertaking and not an employee in any of the Department of the State, could not be absorbed in the State services after closure of his organization as such absorption was not permissible under The Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1969"). According to appellants-respondents, there was no provision of absorption of a person working in the State undertaking in the Government services. Further, case of the respondent was as the Rule did not permit the absorption of respondent-writ petitioner in the Government service, he was asked to give his consent for his absorption in public sector undertaking. It was further averred in the reply by the respondent that even though the Department was under no obligation to continue the respondent-writ petitioner on deputation till his superannuation and even though law did not require it to contribute towards Contributory Provident Fund scheme yet out of benevolence and compassion, considering that the respondent-writ petitioner had continued on deputation for long, such benefit was extended to him. According to State, even under the Rajasthan Industries Service Rules, 1960, the case of the respondent-writ petitioner could not be considered for absorption as he was not a member of Rajasthan Subordinate Services Rules, therefore, even the benefit of appointment could not be extended to him.