Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Honey Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No

Judgment

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of College Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Commissioner, Department of College Education, Dr. Radha Krishnan Siksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Gitesh Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr.Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with Mr.Rahul Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/02/2025

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5781/2018. Counsel submits that the instant petition be disposed of in the light of the similar direction issued in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra).

2. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the respondents are agreeing that the [2025:RJ-JP:7032] (2 of 5) [CW-10567/2023] issue involved in this petition is covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition in the light of the similar directions as given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra) which reads as under:- "The present petitioner was appointed as Vice Principal vide appointment order dated 02.08.2017. Prior to the said appointment, the petitioner was working with the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL) as a Junior Engineer with effect from

30.01.2012. After being selected with the present respondent Department, he resigned from the JVVNL specifically submitting the fact of his being appointed with the respondent Department. The said resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the JVVNL on 11.08.2017 with effect from 04.08.2017. The petitioner thus prayed for grant of regular pay scale and benefits of the service which he rendered in the earlier Department but the same was rejected on the premise that JVVNL, the organization with which the petitioner was earlier working is not governed by the State laws and it is not a body governed by the State. The claim of the petitioner was rejected only on this sole ground and no other ground. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that JVVNL is by all means a government undertaking and has relied upon the judgment passed in Pooja Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2017) decided on 18.12.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:7032] (3 of 5) [CW-10567/2023] Counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio as laid down in Pooja Bhati’s case (supra) would not apply to the present matter. The same was a matter pertaining to fresh recruitment whereas in the present matter, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of his earlier services. Secondly, the petitioner has joined the respondent Department after resignation from his earlier Department and not after simply being relieved by the earlier Department. In Pooja Bhati’s case (supra) also, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with the issue as to whether JVVNL is a Department of the Government or not. After an elaborate discussion of the earlier precedents, the Court reached to the following conclusion: “Thus, this Court finds that the Nigam is not a body so separate or so independent so as to have individual impact on its employees altogether. Rather the legislative intention is clearly for providing the preference to the ministerial staff of the Department of Government of Rajasthan to include such employees who are discharging the duties of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. The precedent law does not apply in the present case as the Vinay Mohan Kiradoo (supra) is dealing with the category change and cannot have any bearing in the present case Dhirendra Sharma (supra) is only dealing with the applicability of Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 which cannot have any bearing in the present case. the case of

38. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to give 12.5% reservation to the petitioners for the appointment to the post of Junior Accountant under the Rules of 1963 treating the Nigam to be a Department [2025:RJ-JP:7032] (4 of 5) [CW-10567/2023] of Government in light of the Sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963.” In view of the above ratio, this Court cannot defer from the opinion that JVVNL is a Department of the Government and therefore, has to be governed by the Rules governing employees of a Government Department. Further the appointment order itself of the present petitioner had a specific clause which reads as under: “tks vH;FkÊ iwoZ ls gh fu;fer jkT; lsok esa dk;Zjr gS mUgsa jkT; ljdkj ds fu;ekuqlkj gh osru HkÙks ns; gksaxsa ijUrq inLFkkiu ij dk;Zxzg.k ds le; iwoZ fu;kstd ds }kjk mfpr ekè;e (Through Proper Channel) ls dk;Zeqä fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ,oa xr Hkqxrku çek.k i= Hkh çLrqr djuk gksxkA” A bare perusal of the above clause makes it clear that any employee who had been in regular service of any Government Department prior to be appointed in a new Government Department, he would be entitled to regular pay scales payable in terms of the Rules governing the employees of the said earlier Department. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been appointed through a proper channel and even resigned through a proper channel. Therefore, the requirements as provided in the conditions of appointment have also been fulfilled by the present petitioner. In view of the ratio as laid down in Pooja Bhati’s case (supra) and in view of observations made above, the present petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondent Department is directed to grant the regular pay scale and the benefit of service to the petitioner keeping in consideration his earlier services with JVVNL. All the pending applications also stand disposed of." [2025:RJ-JP:7032] (5 of 5) [CW-10567/2023]

4. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for both sides, the instant writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the order passed in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan (supra).

5. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /213