1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4976/99 Gajendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State & Anr. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5174/99 Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : 13/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri N.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 3.7.1999 whereby the earlier order dated 18.3.1998 was cancelled and the absorption of the petitioners in Agriculture Marketing Department was cancelled. The petitioners were originally employees of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Sheep and Wool Marketing Federation Ltd., Jaipur. Since the aforesaid Federation was running into losses, the State Cabinet by its decision dated 7.8.1999 decided to dissolve the said Federation and treat its employees as surplus and thereafter adjusted them with the government departments. The 2 respondents passed the order dated 18.3.1998 by which the petitioners were treated as surplus employee and thereafter absorbed as Supervisor with the Agriculture Marketing Department. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that when the decision of the Government was to absorb the employees of the Federation which has been dissolved, the absorption of the petitioners cannot be made because that would render them jobless. It was argued that the vested right of the petitioners could not be withdrawn suddenly without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Effect of this order would be that petitioners would be left with no where to go and order having such devastating effect is liable to be declared arbitrary and illegal and be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the basis on which the respondents cancelled their absorption was that the petitioners were wrongly shown as Marketing and Extension Supervisors with the Federation and that they were simply Extension Officers whereas the fact is that the petitioners were given the pay scale of 3 the post of Supervisor by the Marketing Federation by its order dated 30.8.1997 and an entry to this effect was made in their service book. Learned counsel relied on Annexure-8, copy of which is on record. Shri Hemant Gupta, Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the absorption of the petitioners was contrary to the rules because when the Marketing Federation was on the verge of being closed, the Managing Director of the Federation conferred undue benefit on the petitioners by showing them as Marketing and Extension Supervisor. They were substantively posted on the post of Purchase Assistant and such an illegal order could not have been passed. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was merely passed to rectify the mistake and therefore no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioners. It was submitted that the absorption of the petitioners on the post of Supervisor was wrong because they were never promoted on the post of Marketing and Extension Supervisor in Sheep & Wool Marketing Federation. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined and submitted that when the State Cabinet had taken a decision to liquidate the Federation and treat its employees as surplus employees, there can be no question of petitioner reverting back to the Federation. He in this connection referred to the additional affidavit filed by one of the petitioner namely Ranveer Singh Rajawat. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I find that the fact with regard to absorption of the petitioners on the post of Supervisor is very much evident from the order dated 3.7.1999 itself in which a reference has been made to the absorption order of the petitioners dated 18.3.1998. The petitioners have asserted and this fact has not been denied by the respondents that prior to passing of that order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The copy of the relevant extract of the service book has been placed on record and it is clearly evident from the perusal of the same that an entry in their service book was made by the Managing Director that the 5 petitioners were posted as Marketing and Extension Supervisor in the scale of Rs.1400-2600. Copy of such order dated 30.8.1997 is on record. The absorption of the petitioners was made on the post of Supervisor on account of the fact that they were drawing salary in the scale of 1400- 2600 at the time they were declared surplus. When the petitioners were shifted as Marketing Assistant, they were already receiving the very same scale by virtue of grant of selection scale. This hardly therefore makes any difference that for what reason they were getting the scale of 1400- 2600. The fact is that this very scale was payable on the post of Marketing and Extension Supervisor in the Federation and for their administrative exigencies they posted the petitioners on that post. Now that the petitioners were absorbed on the post of Supervisor, the order of their absorption could not be abruptly cancelled by the respondents without providing them opportunity of hearing and without complying the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have till date continued to work 6 in the Agriculture Marketing Department, albeit pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 20.9.1999. In the result, both the writ petition are allowed. The impugned order dated 3.7.1999 is set aside. Petitioners are held entitled to the benefits pursuant to the original order of absorption dated 18.3.1998. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/