1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14066/2008 Chandan Singh Versus The State of Rajasthan and others Date of order ::: February 09,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Ms.Srijana Shreshth, for the petitioner Mr.Hemant Mathur,Dy.Govt.Counsel BY THE COURT (1) Issue notice to the respondents. (2) Mr.Hemant Mathur, Dy. Govt. Counsel is directed to accept the notices. (3) With the consent of counsel for both the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally and the same is being decided. (4) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is already working as Laboratory Technician from 28.4.2006 on ad hoc temporary basis in the office of Project Director, Rajasthan State Aids Control Society, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Rule 13(viii) of the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Service Rules, 2008 (in short `the Rules of 2008') but the same is not being granted. The alternative ground which has been taken by the petitioner is that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission V. Dr.Jamuna Kurup & ors. (2008 Lab.I.C. 3583) contract employees have also been held entitled to age relaxation. The respondents have acted contrary to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.Jamuna 2 Kurup. (5) Submission of Mr.Mathur,Dy. Govt.Counsel is that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed by him. (6) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions. (7) Before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote Rule 13 (viii) of the Rules of 2008 and relevant portion of paras 12 and 13 of the Supreme Court judgment in Dr.Jamuna Kurup. The same are as under: “Rule 13(viii) of the Rajasthan Rural Medical and Health Service Rules, 2008. “13(viii) that the persons appointed temporarily to a post in the Service shall be deemed to be within the age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear finally before the Committee/Commission and shall be allowed up to two chances had they been eligible as such at the time of their initial appointment.” Relevant portion of Paras 12 and 13 of the Supreme Court judgment in Dr.Jamuna Kurup (supra) “Employment under the Municipal Corporation could be either permanent/regular or short term/contractual. Age relaxation given to 'municipal employees' in the matter of recruitment to posts in Municipal Corporation would therefore include persons working on contract with the Corporation. Moreover the term `employee' is not defined in the Act. Nor is it defined in the advertisement. If the intention of MCD and UPSC was to extend the age relaxation only to permanent employees, the advertisement would have stated that age relaxation would be extended only to permanent or regular employees of MCD or that the age relaxation would be extended to employees of MCD other than contract or temporary employees. The fact that the term `employees of MCD' is no way restricted, makes it clear that the intention was to include all employees including contractual employees. The ordinary meaning of `employee' is any person employed on salary or wages by an employer. When there is a contract of employment, the person employed is the employee and the person employing is the employer. In the absence of any restrictive definition, the word `employee' would include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term, contractual or ad hoc.” (emphasis supplied) 3 (8) In my view, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Rule 13(viii) of the Rules of 2008 for the simple reason that no post was earlier advertised nor the petitioner was appointed temporarily under the Rules of 2008 i.e. 18.2.2008. (9) As regards petitioner's appointment on contract basis in any other government scheme, the Supreme Court judgment in Dr.Jamuna Kurup will apply, therefore, in my view, the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation as per the judgment in Dr.Jamuna Kurup (supra) . (10) The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment and the petitioner shall not be denied appointment merely on the ground of over age. (11) The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. Gopal