Govind Singh Rajpurohit vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions. Name of Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, as counsel for the petitioners is shown in the cause list.

The case is listed at Serial No. 11 in today''s cause list in the category of "Admission with notice served-reply filed".

None is present on behalf of petitioner. Perused the record. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 16.08.2012 seeking following relief(s):-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to determine the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Enforcement Inspector w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 9.11.1981 and place him in appropriate position in the and in accordance thereof, he may be allowed all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour.

(iii) The writ petition may be allowed with costs."

The petitioner is working on the post of Enforcement Inspector. He was initially appointed as Industry Extension Officer vide order dated 26.10.1981 and he joined the duties on 09.11.1981. The petitioner was declared surplus vide order dated 08.03.1988 and he jointed his duties on 15.11.1989 on the post of Enforcement Inspector. The petitioner has averred that the post of Industry Extension Officer and the post of Enforcement Inspector were equivalent posts having the same pay scales and qualification.

The cause of action arose to the petitioner, when a seniority list of Enforcement Inspector was published under the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (Rules of 1974), in which petitioner''s name finds place at Serial No. 30 counting the petitioner''s seniority from 16.11.1989 though the petitioner was appointed on 09.11.1981. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 22.1.2002 and prayed that his seniority may be considered from 09.11.1981/15.11.1981.

Thereafter, on 06.05.2010 a seniority list was published, wherein the petitioner''s name finds place at Serial No. 51. At that point of time, the petitioner again made a representation on 02.06.2010 and prayed for counting his seniority position from 15.11.1981, the date of joining. The last representation was made by the petitioner on 04.11.2011 (Annex. 16), but which according to petitioner has not been responded by the respondents.

Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondents, wherein the respondents have refuted the contention of the petitioner that the post of Enforcement Inspector and Industries Extension Officer are equivalent. The respondents have averred that the petitioner was not appointed on substantive basis in the Industries Department and rather was appointed on a purely on temporary basis and as per Rule 7 (d) of the Absorption of Surplus Personnel, 1969, the nature of appointment will not change on absorption i.e. appointment of petitioner was temporary and after absorption it will remain temporary, hence the petitioner was rightly placed below in the seniority list.

Having perused the averments made in the writ petition and having heard the learned Dy. Govt. Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that it is a matter of representation first to the respondent Department only, and admittedly, the petitioner has already made a representation to the respondents on 04.11.2011 (Annex. 16) raising his grievances.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner by a speaking order after providing him an opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from today. If, however, any adverse order is passed, the petitioner may avail his legal remedy in accordance with law. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.