# Shanker Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1039
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-06
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 7002 of 2009
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanker-sharma-v-state-of-rajasthan-42540
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All] Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P.

1039
Smt.
Rekha
Gaud
and
Shaildendra
Srivastava on 10.8.2007. Result of this
consideration has been annexed. At the end
of this report of the departmental promotion
committee it is mentioned says that he was
found suitable for promotion.

6. Accordingly, the order dated
10.8.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner
for promotion is set aside. The case of the
petitioner should be considered for giving him
promotion from the date when his name was
considered and was illegally rejected. His
seniority should reckon from the date
aforesaid three persons were given promotion.
Since he has not worked on promoted post
hence it will be treated to be a notional
promotion and higher salary of the post of
Assistant Accountant shall not be payable to
him for that period. However, seniority will be
counted for all other purposes from the date
when his colleagues were given promotion
and he was left out arbitrarily.

7. Since the validity of the order
dated 20.4.2007 has itself been denied by
an order of the government dated
3.2.2009, there is no purpose of quashing
the said government order. However, it is
made clear that it will not be read
adversely in the case of the petitioner and
it will not adversely affect the promotion
of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.8.2007.

8. The petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.
Service Single No. 7002 of 2009

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, Sri N.N. Jaiswal
Sri
Prashant
Jaiswal,
Sri
Siddharth
Shekhar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 23- Petitioner
working as 'Dai for last 10 years-getting
Rs. 50/- subsequently enhanced to Rs.
200/-11post of Dai still vacant-amount to
Begar as per Art. 23 of Constitutionpetitioner
being
Backward
categoryentitled for age relaxation-authorities to
consider selection of petitioner without
being prejudice with crass of upper age
limit-considering long period of working as
she
became
overage-direction
issued
accordingly.

Held: Para-5
Petitioner has now worked for almost
ten years with the opposite parties. She
must definitely have become overage by
now. The petition is disposed of with a
direction to the opposite partis that in
case the said 11 posts are to be filled up,
the petitioner will also be allowed to
participate in the selection in view of the
law laid down in the case of Yamuna
Shanker Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
and others, (2007) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 611 as also in the case of Mukesh
Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2000 (1) A.W.C. 221.

Case Law discussed:
(2007) 2 SCC 611; 2000 (1) A.W.C. 221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. Heard Sri N. N. Jaiswal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing counsel.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that
she was appointed as part time 'Dai' on
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

30.4.2003 and she joined her duties at SubCentre, Akbara Primary Health Centre, Pura
Bazar, District - Faizabad. She was paid
honorarium of Rs.50/- only which was
converted to Rs.200/- per month. Petitioner
has passed Class VIII-Madhyama which is
equivalent to Class X and she also
undergone some training in the department.
Petitioner has been working since then yet
she is not even being paid daily wages what
to say of regularization.

3. Sri Jaiswal has informed that
there are 11 posts of regular 'Dai'
available with the opposite parties and the
services
of
the
petitioner
can
be
regularized on one of these posts.

4. Learned Standing counsel has
submitted that there is no post of 'Dai'
with the department yet he admits that the
petitioner was appointed on part-time
'Dai'. There is a contradiction in the
counter affidavit and the arguments of the
State. Paying Rs.200/- per month can only
be explained as 'Begar' which has been
prohibited under Article 23 of the
Constitution of India, which is quoted as
under:-

"23. Prohibition of traffic in human
beings and forced labour

(1) Traffic in human beings and
begar and other similar forms of forced
labour
are
prohibited
and
any
contravention of this provision shall be an
offence punishable in accordance with
law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall
prevent
the
State
from
imposing
compulsory service for public purpose,
and in imposing such service the State
shall not make any discrimination on
grounds only of religion, race, caste or
class or any of them."

5. Petitioner has now worked for
almost ten years with the opposite parties.
She must definitely have become overage
by now. The petition is disposed of with a
direction to the opposite partis that in case
the said 11 posts are to be filled up, the
petitioner will also be allowed to
participate in the selection in view of the
law laid down in the case of Yamuna
Shanker Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
and others, (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases
611 as also in the case of Mukesh
Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2000 (1) A.W.C. 221.

6. Since the petitioner belongs to
backward caste, the relaxation of age will
be available to her in that category also.
In any view of the matter, she will not be
debarred on the basis of age in
participating in the selection.

7. The petition is disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.
HON'BLE Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Bench No.7558 of 2011

Nawab Haider

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Srivastava, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
Deepak
Srivastava