SBCWP NO.70/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.70/1997. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- January 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri V.B. Srivastava for the petitioner. Shri R.B. Mathur for respondent No.2. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Rajendra Prasad Mathur way back in the year 1996 with the prayer that he be assigned seniority in the cadre of Excise Inspector Gr.II and Grade-I giving the benefits of his substantive service in the erstwhile department i.e. Sheep & Wool Department w.e.f. 10/2/1966 wherefrom he was declared surplus and was absorbed in the respondent Excise Department. It is prayed that petitioner be granted benefit of seniority as per provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Surplus Personnel) Rules, 1969 in SBCWP NO.70/97. 2 view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in DBCWP No.1477/1990 (Bhanwarlal Malakar Vs. State) decided on 24/11/1990. Shri V.B. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri Bhanwarlal Malakar in the aforesaid case was also, like the petitioner an employee declared surplus from the Land & Building Tax Department and was absorbed in the Excise Department. He too was assigned bottom seniority. He approached this court seeking benefit of seniority as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1969 supra. Division Bench allowed his writ petition. Special leave to petition filed against that judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He was eventually granted the said benefit. Another employee Devi Shankar Sharma who was also an surplus employee from Land & Building Tax Department was also denied the same relief by the department on the premise that the case of Bhanwarlal Malakar was personal to him, said benefit would not be granted to him. He filed SBCWP No.5718/1995 which was allowed by the judgment of this court dated 19/3/1996 with direction that he shall be given the same benefit as was given to Shri Bhanwarlal Malakar. Respondents vide letter dated 28/11/1996 replied that since judgment in case of Bhanwarlal Malakar was personal to him, petitioner could not be SBCWP NO.70/97. 3 granted any such benefits. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition but was not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitoiner with that of Shri Bhanwarlal Malakar and Devi Shankar Sharma. Having regard to the facts aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give similar benefit to the petitioner with consequential benefits on the analogy of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Shri Bhanwarlal Malakar supra. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil