P.L. HISARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointment as Secretary to Justice R.S. Kejriwal Inquiry Commission vide order dtd. 21/3/2005. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Judge Industrial-cum-Labour Tribunal, Jaipur. Counsel submits that subsequently, a new fresh appointment order was issued by the respondents vide order dtd. 6/2/2006 indicating therein that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28/2/2006 and by the same order he was re-appointed on the aforementioned post of Secretary to discharge the functions of Judicial Inquiry Commission. Counsel submits that at the time of his reappointment a rider was put that he would not be entitled to get residential office allowance, sumptuary allowance and petrol allowance. Counsel submits that the other similarly situated persons namely Radheshyam Gupta and Nanagram Sharma were granted all above allowances and they were similarly appointed as Secretary in different Inquiry Commission and Special Committee. Counsel submits that when the case of the petitioner was at par with the above persons then the petitioner is also entitled to get the same allowances. Counsel submits that two equals cannot be treated differently. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to pay petrol allowance, sumptuary allowance and residential office allowance along with interest to the petitioner. Submissions by the respondents:

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of appointing the petitioner as Secretary he was in service and he was discharging his duties and functions of Judge Industrial Tribunal and additional charge was handed over to him to act as Secretary of Justice R.S. Kejriwal Inquiry Commission. Counsel submit that after his retirement he was re-engaged as Secretary of the aforesaid Commission. Counsel submits that after his fresh appointment, an order was issued by the respondents on 6/6/2006, in which it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner would not be entitled to get all above allowances. Counsel submits that it is sole discretion of the State to grant allowances to the individuals appointed in different Inquiry Commissions. Counsel submits that in the case of Radheshyam Gupta and Nanangram Sharma approval was granted by the Department of Finance, hence the above benefits were given to them but here in the instant case no such approval was granted by the Department of Finance, hence the respondents have not caused any illegality in not granting these allowances to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Analysis and Reasoning: