Hattya Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused if this Hon'ble Court so pleases and by way of issue of appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, the order dated 01.07.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to restore all the benefits to the petitioner and to grant all the consequential benefits as if, the order dated 01.07.2008 had not been passed.

Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court finds fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner, may also be passed."

The petitioner was a Forest Guard under the office of respondent No.2 and was appointed under the Work Charge Rules. After completion of 2 years of service, the petitioner was given semi-permanent status w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and after completion of 10 years of services, permanent status was conferred upon him w.e.f. 31.03.1996. The petitioner was confirmed and his services were regularised on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 11.05.1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and thus, the provisions of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules of 1951') were applicable upon the petitioner. The petitioner remained ill and thus, was absent from 08.10.2006 to 15.10.2006, 04.02.2007 to 16.02.2007, 16.04.2007 to 20.04.2007, 10.01.2008 to 20.01.2008, 13.04.2008 to 12.05.2008, 26.05.2008, 27.05.2008, 30.05.2008 and 01.06.2008 to 07.06.2008 (total 76 days). Thereafter an order was passed against the petitioner on 01.07.2008 whereby the past services of 22 years of the petitioner were forfeited in exercise of powers under Rule 86(i) of the Rules of 1951 on the ground of willful absence on various occasions for 76 days.

Counsel for the petitioner Shri Gaurav Sharma submits that now, the petitioner is no more and his son has received the compassionate appointment but revisiting of the impugned order is necessary as it directly affects the wife of the deceased who would have been entitled for family pension, in case the impugned order has not been interfered with by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the punishment of forfeiting of 22 years of past service is too harsh for remaining absent for 76 days.

Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Dy.G.C. however submitted that the petitioner remained absent without leave and without proper medical certificate on number of occasions, details of which we have already recorded. Counsel for the respondent submits that Rule 86(i) of the Rules of 1951 clearly entitles the respondent to forfeit the past service and also forfeiting such services. A lenient view has been taken by the respondent and instead of taking harsh action the respondents have given compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased petitioner. Counsel for respondent submits that number of notices were given to the late petitioner who did not mend his ways.

This Court after seeing the fact that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and the powers of the Rules of 1986 have been rightly exercised by the learned authority in the impugned order moreover, this Court is conscious of the fact that compassionate appointment has been given to the son of the deceased petitioner and thus, the family has been taken care of. The forfeiture of service was as a consequence of repeated absence of 76 days. Thus, no interference is called for.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.