MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dtd. 13/6/2012 passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been treated as regularly appointed only with effect from 15/2/2012 after qualifying the efficiency test on 9/4/2012, with further prayer to treat the services of the petitioner as pensionable as well as to grant benefit of pay fixation and other consequential benefits as directed vide judgment dtd. 3/12/2009 passed earlier by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 1591/1996.

(2.) The factual matrix, as pleaded in the writ petition, reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 15/1/1985 on temporary/daily wage basis. His services were abruptly terminated in October, 1987, notwithstanding the fact that fresh appointees were engaged in his place. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 726/1988, which came to be decided on 5/2/1993 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case sympathetically in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1993 SC 115. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dtd. 8/7/1993 and he joined duties on 17/7/1993.

(3.) It is further stated that prior to disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the State Government issued a notification dtd. 12/10/1992 inserting sub-rule (10) to Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1957'), providing for regularisation of daily wage/ad-hoc LDCs working during the period from 1/1/1985 to 31/3/1990, subject to their qualifying the departmental efficiency examination. Departmental examinations were conducted on 24/1/1993 and 14/8/1994 and similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner and whose services had not been interrupted, were permitted to appear in the said examinations and were regularised vide order dtd. 30/3/1993. The petitioner, however, was denied such opportunity.