Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sidharth Ojha vs The State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 860/2021
1. Sidharth Ojha S/o Shri Hari Krishna Ojha, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of 471-Street No. 1, Rajendra Nagar
Extension, Pali.
2. Manoj Kumar Khatik S/o Shri Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of Mangalpura Bus Stand,
Kuraj, Tehsil - Railmagra, District - Rajsamand.
3. Komal Soni W/o Shri Bhanu Prakash Soni, Aged About 43
Years, Resident Of 24-Pemi Dwara Marg, Amal Ka Kania,
Suraj Pole, Udaipur.
4. Shankar Lal Dhobi S/o Shri Godaji Dhobi, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of 594- Panerio Ki Madri, Infront Of
Mayour Ke Samne, Udaipur.
5. Tauseef Ahmed S/o Abdul Ahad, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of 16- Mohalla Sadat, Nilaghran Ki Maszid Ke
Samne, Malpura, District Tonk.
6. Mahendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Dhan Singh, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Village And Post- Dudiya,
Tehsil - Rohat, District Pali.
7. Dhanraj Manat S/o Shri Bheemji Manat, Aged About 47
Years, Resident Of At Talab Fala Damdi, Post Damdi,
Tehsil Dungarpur, District Dungarpur.
8. Babulal Bhil S/o Shri Ratna Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Loarcha, Tehsil Kotra, District
Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Establishment (K-2) Department, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary Education (Grade-Iii) Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Secondary-I, Udaipur.
5. The District Education Officer, Secondary, Pali.
----Respondents
(2 of 4) [CW-860/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HD Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
15/01/2021
1. The basic issue involved in the present petition is, whether
the petitioners are entitled for benefits of Old Pension Scheme
under the Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petitions is squarely
covered by judgment dated 08.10.2015, passed by this Court in
SBCWP No.9695/2014 Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. wherein this Court has held as under :-
"A bare look at the order passed by the Division
Bench while rejecting the appeal filed by the State
would reveal that a specific directions was given that
the petitioners would be permitted to join on their
respective place of postings; would be entitled to
actual emoluments of post only with effect from the
date when they actually join their duties, but for the
purpose of seniority and other benefits, they shall not
be placed at lesser advantageous position than those
who have been allowed to join their duties in
pursuance of the order issued initially in pursuance of
the same selections. The said stipulation as indicated
in the order of Division Bench was clearly reflected in
the order of appointment dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-
6), wherein it was indicated that the petitioners would
be entitled to all benefits including the benefits
pertaining to seniority and other benefits as granted to
appointees under Order dated05.09.2003. In view of
specific direction by the Division Bench and the
stipulation made in the order of appointment, their
does not appear to be any reason for the respondents
to treat the petitioners different from the appointees
under order dated 05.09.2003, who admittedly are
governed by provisions of Pension Rules, 1996.
The submission that as the petitioners joined
post after coming into force of Contributory Pension
Rules, 2005, therefore, they would not be entitled to
relief, in view of the specific directions of the Division
(3 of 4) [CW-860/2021]
Bench and stipulation made in the order dated
24.02.2005 such a submission is wholly baseless.
This Court in the case of Madusudan (supra)
while dealing with a similar nature controversy held
as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the petitioner
was accorded appointment against the
vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and
was also granted seniority as well as other
benefits from the year 1998-1999. It is also
not in dispute that similarly situated person -
Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of
old pension scheme, however, the petitioner
has not been granted the said benefits only
for the reason that the appointment was
granted to him in the year 2005.When the
petitioner was accorded appointment against
the vacancy in the year 1998-1999 and was
also assigned seniority from the year 1998-
1999, the action of the respondents in
denying the benefits of the old pension
scheme to the petitioner applicable is not
tenable. It is also noticed that when the
similarly situated person was granted the said
benefit, though appointed after the
appointment of the petitioner, the
respondents are not justifying in denying the
said benefit to the petitioner.
In view of the above discussions, this writ
petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to grant the benefit of the petitioner
as per old pension scheme with all
consequential benefits and revision of pay
scale etc. The said exercise shall be done
within a period of three months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order."
In view of above discussions, the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents
are directed to grant all the benefits including benefit
of Pension Rules, 1996 and ACP with all
consequential benefits to the petitioners as indicated
in the order passed by the Division Bench and order
dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-6).
The exercise may be completed by the
respondents within a period of three months from the
date a certified copy of this order is placed before the
respondents.
No order as to costs."
(4 of 4) [CW-860/2021]
3. Mr. Kailash Choudhary and Mr. Rishi Soni, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents are not in a position to dispute the
aforesaid position of facts and law.
4. Following the adjudication made in Durga Ram Jat Vs. State
of Rajasthan (supra), the present writ petitions are also allowed.
5. Petitioners are held entitled for benefit of Old Pension
Scheme and all other benefits as has been awarded in the case of
Durga Ram (supra).
6. Needful be done within a period of three months from today.
7. Stay petitions also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
172-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
