Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Goverdhan Bardhar and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ. disposed of a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination of his services with the direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel for giving exemption to the petitioner on the condition of proving his proficiency in computer work on the ground that a similar exemption was accorded to one of his colleagues.
The petitioner had challenged the validity of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 which required those appointed on compassionate ground to pass a typing test. The counsel for the petitioner, Mr Om Prakash Sheoran, submitted that ever since the petitioner was appointed on the post, the typewriters had become obsolete and he had been continuously working on computer and acquired proficiency in the computer work. Thus insistence of the respondents to qualify the typing test was wholly unjustified. Further, it was submitted that the respondents had accorded different treatment to another employee. Act of the respondents were discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court without going into the argument as to validity of Rule 6 and 9 of the Rules of 1996, considered that the petitioner had rendered services of more than 8 years and on the argument of discrimination on the basis of exemption accorded to another employee, directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Principal Secretary for according similar exemption to the petitioner on the condition of proving his proficiency in computer work. If eventually, the respondents were persuaded to accord exemption after considering his proficiency in computer work, the petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits and not actual benefits for the intervening period. [Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 270, Order dated 27-02-2019]