H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) ALL these applications arise between the same parties and involve common question of law and facts, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties are heard and decided together taking S.B.Civil Misc. Application No. 09/2008 Smt. Prabha Shrivastav v. Union of India and Ors. as leading case.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these applications are that the petitioners earlier filed before this Court S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5543/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5310/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5531/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6113/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5528/06 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5557/06. The writ petitions came to be decided by orders dt. 25.01.2007, 15.02.2007 and 26.02.2007 on an application moved by respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, stating therein that by order dt. 9.10.2006 (Annex.R -4/1) the State Govt. informed the respondent Board that project employees as being surplus employees of the projects of the State Social Welfare Board have been granted sanction for sending them on deputation on the basis of secondment on their existing pay -scale in different departments of the State of Rajasthan, and therefore, nothing survive in the writ petitions. On this application, after having heard learned Counsel for the parties this Court taking notice of the fact that the petitioners therein have already been absorbed and joined their new posts, observed that nothing survives in the writ petitions and accordingly petitions were disposed of. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners have been absorbed by the State of Rajasthan but for the period for which the petitioners have served the social welfare department i.e. respondent No. 4, the petitioners have not been paid their salary.
(3.) A reply has been filed by the State as also by the Board. The Board stated that 1/3 of the proportionate salary is to be paid by the State and rest of the salary by the Board. In the reply filed by the State through Deputy Government Counsel Mr. Rajesh Bhati, it has been stated that by order Annex.R/2 dt. 01.05.2007, the State has already paid its share in respect of employees petitioners herein to the Board respondent No. 4 and not only in respect of these petitioners but in respect of all the employees who were with the Board their proportionate salary. He has placed on record Annex. R/2 along with the reply to these applications. This fact has not been disputed. Even otherwise, there is no reason for the respondent Board to deny due salary to the petitioners upto the date of their relieving from the Board.;