1 SBCW NO.83/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Chandra Prakash Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 83/2000 Date of Order : : 19/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Y.P.Khileri, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, order Annex.13 dated 29.6.1999 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while serving at the T.B.Senitorium, Badi, Udaipur on the post of Artist, the post said to have been 2 SBCW NO.83/2000 abolished and therefore, by order Annex.4 dated 11.4.1985 passed by General Administration Department (for short 'the GAD' hereinafter) of the Govt. of Rajasthan, absorbed him on the post of Artist in the pay scale of Rs. 520-925 with the respondent No.3, the Principal and Controller, R.N.T. Medical College-cum-Associated Group of Hospitals, Udaipur (for short 'the RNT Hospital' hereinafter). In pursuance thereof, order Annex.5 came to be passed by the respondent No.3 and the petitioner was directed to be absorbed on a vacant post at Officer Incharge, T.B. Senitorium, Badi, Udaipur. The petitioner joined after having been absorbed vide Annex.4 and 5, however, subsequent thereto by order Annex.8 dated 5.5.1994 one post of Junior Accountant was created in place of one post of Artist and the post of Artist was abolished and therefore, the petitioner was again declared surplus and by order Annex.9 passed by respondent No.4, Incharge, T.B. Senitorium, Badi, the petitioner was directed to join at Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter). The petitioner also filed a suit challenging that order before Civil Court, however, that suit was withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal since the order was appealable before the Tribunal. By order impugned 3 SBCW NO.83/2000 Annex.13 dated 29.6.99, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on abolition of post, the petitioner was directed to be absorbed by order of GAD of the State Annex.4 with respondent NO.3 and in pursuance thereof, the respondent No.3 absorbed the petitioner with the respondent NO.4 and subsequent thereto on abolition of post vide Annex.8 it was for the respondents to have sent the petitioner to the GAD of the State for absorption, but instead of sending the petitioner to GAD for absorption, the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to join at respondent No.2. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved before the Tribunal and by order dated 27.9.99, the Tribunal directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duty and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has joined the duty with respondent No.3 w.e.f. 12.1.2000 and since then the petitioner has been serving with the respondent No.3. It is contended by learned Deputy Govt. Counsel for the respondent State that the respondent No.3 is not directly under the control of respondent No.2 and since the respondent No.4 has directed the petitioner to report to respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioner reporting to respondent No.3 is 4 SBCW NO.83/2000 contrary to the order Annex.9 and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Normally, on abolition of a post, the Govt. employee has to be routed to G.A.D. for absorption and initially in the case of the petitioner, he was sent to G.A.D. on abolition of post at respondent No.4 T.B. Senitorium, Badi, Udaipur and by order Annex.4 the respondent No.4 absorbed the petitioner with respondent No.3 and in pursuance thereof, the respondent No.3 absorbed the petitioner with respondent No.4. who is directly under respondent No.3 which is evident from order Annex.5 and subsequent thereto on abolition of the post at respondent No.4, it was for the respondent No.4 to have sent the petitioner to G.A.D. for further absorption, but instead of sending him to G.A.D., the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to report to respondent No.2 which in my view cannot be said to be according to the procedure for absorption and since by order Annex.9 the petitioner was wrongly directed to report to respondent No.2 and thereafter by order of Tribunal, the petitioner has been directed to report at respondent No.3 and the petitioner since then has been serving with the respondent No.3, more particularly from the date he joined i.e. 12.1.2000, 5 SBCW NO.83/2000 more than 9 years have elapsed and therefore, it would not be appropriate now directing the petitioner to report to G.A.D. and seek further absorption. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was initially absorbed by the order Annex.4 with the respondent No.3, in my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 29.6.1999 passed by the tribunal is set aside and it is made clear that the petitioner shall continue with the respondent No.3 on being absorbed with it. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp