IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9252/02 Madan Lal vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 10/11/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.L. Kumawat for the petitioner. Ms. Jyotsana Wahane for the respondent. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 17.8.2002 whereby the petitioner who was working as Sab Nakedar with the respondents was earlier declared surplus on account of abolition of octroi and was absorbed on the post of Assistant Parcha Vitrak. Shri S.L. Kumawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was handicapped having 50% disability in both of his legs and Assistant Parcha Vitrak is a post where the petitioner would be required to work in the field. The respondents ought to have assigned some stationery duties to the petitioner. It is argued that the respondents have to adjusted the petitioner on the post of LDC, the post on which the petitioner till date is discharging duties, but he was degraded on the post of Assistant Parcha Vitrak. Learned counsel submitted that persons junior to him were absorbed on the post of LDC whereas the petitioner was illegally appointed on the post of Assistant Parcha Vitrak. He has given the names of Chittar Mal, Mool Singh and Sohan Lal in this regard. Ms. Jyotsana Wahane, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that so far Chittar Mal and Mool Singh are concerned, they were working on higher post than that of the petitioner as Nakedar and the post of Nakedar was equivalent to the post of LDC and they were rightly absorbed on the post of LDC. The petitioner was working on the post of Sab Nakedar therefore he was rightly absorbed on the post of Assistant Parcha Vitrak. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as Sohan Lal is concerned, when his matter was scrutinised, it was discovered that he was rightly absorbed on the post of LDC and therefore under the order of the Dy. Director (Regional) dated 28.8.2002, the mistake was rectified and he was posted back as Assistant Parcha Vitrak. In view of the fact that the respondents have clarified that no person junior to the petitioner has been adjusted on the post of LDC and that the post of Assistant Parcha Vitrak is equivalent to the post of Sab Nakedar and not LDC, therefore, no case is made out for interference. However, the additional argument that has been made that the petitioner till date has been continuously working on the post of LDC and that because of 50% disability in both his legs, he cannot work in the field, is required to be considered by respondents afresh. In peculiarities of the case, the petitioner is set at liberty to make a representation to the respondents giving out the particulars of the posts on which he has worked and expressed his continuation against such posts or any of the post equivalent to the Assistant Parcha Vitrak and the respondents shall consider and decide such representation keeping in view the fact that disability is suffered by the petitioner and pass appropriate order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/ lssls. Thehe lswls s