THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DR. PREMLATA PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the judgment impugned dated 13.04.2010, learned Single Bench while accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2584/2005 directed the respondent-State (appellant herein) to treat the petitioners (respondents herein) as civil servants with entitlement to all service benefits as per the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951' and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996').

(2.) Learned Single Bench, as per learned Additional Advocate General, failed to appreciate that the appointment of the petitioners, except petitioners Mrs. Rampyari Bhati and Mr. Narain Lal Bhoi, were made on the post of "Pracheta" on contractual basis for a specific term under a project, therefore, they could have not been treated as civil servants. While referring to Rule 2(iii)(b) of the Rules of 1951 and Rule 2(e) of the Rules of 1996, it is submitted that neither the Rajasthan Service Rules nor Pension Rules of 1996 are applicable to the petitioners. Reliance is also placed by learned Additional Advocate General upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the Rajasthan Subordinate Employees' Union & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6600/1992) decided on 21.01.2013 at Jaipur to assert that the "Prachetas" working with the Women's Development Project cannot be treated as "civil servants".

(3.) On the other hand, while opposing the appeal, the argument advanced by Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hukam Singh, is that the appointments to the petitioners were given as per the provisions of the Rules framed under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, being in employment of State of Rajasthan from more than 2 decades and further presently being already absorbed in the service of the Panchayat Raj institutions and also in light of the judgment rendered by Honourable Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kaberi Khastagir & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L & S) 566, the petitioners are nothing but civil servants, thus, learned Single Bench rightly accepted the petition for writ with a direction to extend all benefits available to civil servants under the Rules of 1951 and the Rules of 1996 to the petitioners also.