Employees Have A Legitimate Expectation For Extension Of Same Benefits As Extended To Similarly Situated Employees: Rajasthan HC

A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Mukesh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan has held that employees have a legitimate expectation of getting same benefits which were extended to an employee which is similarly situated.

Background Facts

Dr. Mukesh Sharma (Petitioner) was appointed as Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in 1998. In 2009, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. In 2012, the Rajasthan Government issued a notification vide which they introduced Rules 24B and 24BB in the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (Medical Service Rules). As per these new provisions, an Associate Professor was eligible for promotion to Professor on completion of four years of regular service. On 14.06.2013, the Department of Medical Education (Respondent) issued an order vide which certain Associate Professors were promoted as Professors in view of Rule 24B & 24BB of the Medical Service Rules. On 1.11.2013, the Petitioner voluntarily retired from the service.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the he was entitled to Promotion in view of Rule 24B & 24BB of the Medical Service Rules. The order dated 14.06.2013 allowed promotion to various persons including one Dr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat on completion of his four years' service as an Associate Professor. However, the Petitioner also completed his 4 years of service before his voluntary retirement and the action of the Respondent to not allow promotion to the Petitioner is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that a list of members of service who are eligible under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme needs to be prepared on 1^st April of each year. The eligibility of the person for promotion needs to assessed as on 1^st April of the year in which the promotion is to be made. Since the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Associate Professor on 29.10.2009, he completed his service of four years as an Associate Professor on 28.10.2013 and was thus entitled for promotion to the post of Professor on 01.04.2014. However, since the Petitioner voluntarily retired from the service on 1.11.2013, he was not entitled for the promotion.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that in view of the fact that the Petitioner joined the post of Associate Professor on 29.10.2009 and voluntarily retired from service on 01.11.2013, he has completed 4 years of service as an Associated Professor prior to his voluntary retirement. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Professor.

The court further observed that the Respondent has raised a contention that eligibility of an Associate Professor for promotion is to be looked as on 1st April of the year in which the promotion is to be made as provided under Rule 24BB (1) of the Medical Service Rules. It was however remarked by the court that Dr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat was appointed to the post of Associate Professor on 02.07.2008 and was promoted as Professor vide the order dated 14.06.2013 with effect from 11.07.2012. Thus even Dr. Nagendra Singh was not having four years working service experience as on 01.04.2012, however he was allowed the promotion in view of power of the State Government to relax the rules.

The court further observed that in view of the law on parity and the facts regarding the similar working experience of Dr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat and the Petitioner, the Petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits as have been extended to Dr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat. Since Dr. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat was accorded promotion as soon as he completed 4 years of service as Associate Professor, the Petitioner also became entitled to the same benefit of promotion after he completed four years of experience on 28.10.2013.

Lasty, the court remarked the following:

“It is a legitimate expectation of an employee that whatever the benefits are being extended to an employee who is similarly situated to him/her, the same benefits be also allowed to him/her. The respondent has no authority to make a discrimination among the similarly situated employees for no good reason”

With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Writ Petition was allowed.

Case No.- Civil Writ Petition No. 10718/2015

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

Case Name- Dr. Mukesh Sharma vs State of Rajasthan

Counsel for the Petitioner- Ms. Anita Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent- Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, learned AAG with Ms. Malti & Ms. Kratima Divakar

Click Here To Read/Download Order