Vivek Jadon v. The State Of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11711 / 2017 Vivek Jadon S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Jadon, R/o G-2, Plot No. 92, Income Tax Colony - 1, Ramnagaria Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302017 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary, Department of Information and Public Relation, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Information and Public Relation, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain and Mr. A. K. Arora For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order 21/07/2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thecontroversy involved in the instant writ application standsresolved, in view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench ofthis Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963/2007 (GopalKumawat Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.), decided on 29th July, 2015,holding thus: “32. In the present case, no material has been placedbefore us, nor any plea has been taken in the reply thatthe probationers, during the period of their probation, donot perform the same duties and responsibilities and arenot required to carry out the same functions as confirmed employees. 33. We find the practice of payment of fixedremuneration without any allowances and benefit ofincrements to the probationers, who were appointed afteradopting the regular selection process, on substantiveposts, or even after following the selection process on adhoc basis, as well as all those employees who are appointedon substantive posts, to be wholly illegal and arbitrary, andpernicious practice of forced labour. 34. We find no justification for the State Government, toadopt the practice of paying fixed remuneration to theprobationers, which is not prevalent, either in the CentralGovernment, or in any other States in the country. TheGovernment of Rajasthan has adopted this evil practice offorced labour for its employees, taking advantage of theattraction of the Government service. The Notificationsdated 13.03.2006, amending the Rules, are thus, declaredto be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14, 16, 21,23 and 38 of the Constitution of India, and against theconscience of the Constitution of India. 35. The writ petition is allowed. The Notification dated13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951,and the Notification of the same date i.e. 13.03.2006,amending the Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale)Rules, 1998- Fixed remuneration to probationer trainees,are hereby quashed. The State respondents are directedto pay the entire differential amount of regular pay scaleand allowances to the petitioner, after deducting theamount of fixed remuneration paid to him during theperiod of probation. 36. Now since by this judgment, we have declared theNotification dated 13.03.2006, amending the RajasthanService Rules, 1951, and the Notification of the same datei.e. 13.03.2006, amending the Rajasthan CivilServices(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998- Fixedremuneration to probationer trainees, to beunconstitutional and consequently quashed the same, wedirect that the State Government shall, pay to all itsemployees, appointed on regular or ad hoc basis under thestatutory Rules on substantive posts, except theemployees appointed on contract, daily rated or workcharged employees, regular pay in time scale along with allallowances including Special Pay, Dearness Pay, DearnessAllowance, House Rent Allowance, City CompensatoryAllowance, Non Practicing Allowance, Non-ClinicalAllowance. Rural Allowance, Project Allowance, Mess Allowance, Washing Allowance or any other allowance, asare admissible to a confirmed employee in the samedepartment. The payment of these allowances will not bedependent upon the period of probation, or successfulcompletion of the period of probation. The probationertrainees will also be entitled to deductions towardsGeneral Provident Fund (GPF), State Insurance, andTravelling Allowance, as are admissible and payable to theregular employees. They shall also be entitled to annualgrade increments for the period of probation, afterconfirmation and Casual Leave, as in the case of otherregular employees.” In case, the claim of the petitioner is found to be covered bythe adjudication referred to herein-above; the petitioner be alsoallowed the same benefits. Needless to observe that the rights of the parties would begoverned by the final adjudication on SLP pending before the ApexCourt of the land wherein judgment in the case of Gopal Kumawat(supra), is under challenge. In the result, the writ petition is disposed off, in the light ofthe judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29th July,2015, in the case of Gopal Kumwat (supra). Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for theperiod of probation; subject to adjudication on the SLP pendingbefore the Apex Court of the land which would govern the rights ofthe parties. (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.