[2025:RJ-JP:21881] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4156/2019 Sanjay Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Birol, Via Jhanjhad, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through its Secretary To Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur 3. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG Mr. S.P. Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 23/05/2025 1. Heard counsel for petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record. 2. Indisputably, petitioner applied for the post of Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) to be recruited at Nagar Parishad, Jhunjhunu, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.04.2018 and in the selection process conducted through lottery system under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Services) Rules, 2012, he has been selected and appointment order dated [2025:RJ-JP:21881] (2 of 4) [CW-4156/2019] 14.07.2018 was offered to petitioner to join on the post within a period of one month. 3. Petitioner could not join within a period of one month from the date of appointment order dated 14.07.2018, rather appeared for joining before respondent on 18.09.2018, but respondents did not permit to join the petitioner, hence, the instant writ petition. 4. Petitioner has assigned reasons for not joining within prescribed timeline, stating inter alia, that he had fallen seriously sick and could not come to know about issuance of the appointment order dated 14.07.2018, however, as soon as he recovered from his sickness and came to know about his appointment, he immediately rushed for joining. Petitioner submits that action of respondents, declining to join the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory more so when the vacant post of Safai Karamchari at Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu are available pursuant to such vacancies. In order to show the availability of vacant post, a letter dated 21.04.2023, issued from the Office of Nagar Parishad, Jhunjhunu, showing availability of 48 vacant posts, has been placed on record as Annexure-A/1. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that there is hardly less than 30 days delay on the part of the petitioner for appearing to join and the respondents, in case of Mahesh Panwar S/o Mohan Lal Panwar has condoned the delay of much longer period and allowed him to join on the post of Safai Karamchari at Nagar Parishad Mandal Bagru vide order dated 30.06.2022 pursuant to the same vacancies. In support of such contention, the letter dated 04.05.2022, 06.06.2022 and appointment order dated 30.06.2022 [2025:RJ-JP:21881] (3 of 4) [CW-4156/2019] to show the factum of condoning delay in joining by Mahesh Panwar has been placed on record. 6. It has been prayed that considering the genuine reason assigned by the petitioner and there was no deliberate delay on his part, delay in joining may be condoned and respondents may be directed to allow joining to the petitioner on the post of Safai Karamchari pursuant to his appointment dated 14.07.2018 or a fresh appointment order may be issued on the same terms and conditions, as was issued in case of Mahesh Panwar. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents, while opposing the writ petition on merits, has placed on record a factual report dated 22.05.2025 issued from the office of Nagar Parishad, Jhunjhunu. A perusal of factual report reveals that the factum of condoning the delay in joining in case of Mahesh Panwar at Nagar Parishad Mandal Bagru has not been disputed and on the principle of parity, respondents are agreeable to issue a fresh appointment order to the petitioner on the similar terms and conditions on which the appointment was offered to the petitioner vide order dated 14.07.2018. 8. This Court finds that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for occuring the delay in his joining have not been denied. Reasons of sickness assigned by the petitioner have been supported by placing the relevant medical documents, showing the illness of petitioner at the relevant point of time. Non-joining by the petitioner within prescribed timeline does not seem to be deliberate and the delay in joining is hardly less than 30 days. 9. This Court finds that the appointment order dated 14.07.2018 contains a condition that in case of his not joining on [2025:RJ-JP:21881] (4 of 4) [CW-4156/2019] the post, the appointment order shall stood cancelled automatically. In case of Mahesh Panwar, respondents issued a fresh appointment order, allowing to join him within 30 days therefrom. The case of petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of Mahesh Panwar and petitioner may also be granted similar relief to which learned Additional Advocate General has also no objection. 10. Thus, applying the principle of parity, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh appointment order to the petitioner on the similar terms and conditions on which the appointment order dated 14.07.2018 was issued and petitioner be permitted to join within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of fresh appointment order. 11. The needful be done within a period of one month from today. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /150