SALIM MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions. Names of Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Mr. M.S. Godara, Mr. Sandeep Shah and Mr. Digvijay Singh, counsel for the petitioner are shown in the cause list. Name of Mr. Bharat Dutt Sharma, Dy. Govt. Counsel and Mr. R.S. Saluja, counsel for the respondent are shown in the cause list.

(2.) THE case is listed at Serial No. 110 in today's cause list under the category "for hearing". The present writ petition has been filed on 23.06.2010 with the following prayers: -

(3.) THE facts leading to filing the present writ petition in nut shell are as infra. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the handicapped category vide the order dated 21.12.1987 (Annex. 1) issued by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Merta City ('KUMS', for short). The petitioner was later on confirmed on that post and rendered the services as LDC there for almost 20 years. Thereafter, upon a Notification No. dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of "Junior Marketing Officer", the petitioner applied for the said post and on the basis of 25% of the posts reserved for departmental candidates including ministerial staff of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Marketing Officer vide the order (Annex. 3) dated 18.08.2009. The petitioner's pay while he was working as LDC in the KUMS was Rs. 14,290/ - was protected and instead of monthly fixed pay of Rs. 11,100/ - to be given to the petitioner as Probationer Trainee in view of said selection, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 14,290/ -. Later on, the said benefit was sought to be withdrawn by the impugned order (Annex. 8) dated 10.05.2010 and recovery of excess amount paid on this ground was sought to be made vide the impugned order (Annex. 9) dated 25.05.2010. The petitioner has challenged the said order and in the alternative has challenged the said condition in the Notification of the Government of Rajasthan dated 13.03.2006 to the extent of Clause (iv) and its proviso, which are also quoted herein below for ready reference: -