CHANDU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scorning the detailed factual matrix, suffice it to notice that in the present writ petition petitioner has set out his case for desired reliefs on the anvil of his absorption in the respondent department upon declaring surplus by the Irrigation Department. For substantiating his claim of pay fixation in appropriate pay scales and all consequential benefits flowing from the said fixation, petitioner has taken shelter of Rule 26(1)(a)(ii) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'Rules of 1951') and Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules 1969 (for short, Rules of 1969'). A similar issue came up before the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5400/2015, decided on 12.04.2017) , wherein the incumbent-petitioner, on being declared surplus by the Irrigation Department, was absorbed on the post of Gram Sewak in the Panchayati Raj Department. The Coordinate Bench, while examining the matter threadbare and the true purport of Rule 26(1)(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1951 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1969, observed as under:

(2.) The Court upon consideration of the clarification/instruction, quoted below Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, held as under:

(3.) Finally, while relying on a decision of Gujarat High Court in case of M.M. Bhavsar -Peon v. State of Gujarat ((2000) 1 GLR 822) adjudicated the controversy with following observations: