Dr Ramnarayan Jha vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3241 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9965/2018

Dr. Ramnarayan Jha S/o Shri Ratikant Jha, R/o 390, Rajni Vihar,
Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, At Present Working As Lecturer
Sanskrit At S.k. Govt. Girls College, Sikar.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State   Of   Rajasthan,         Through         The      Additional   Chief
       Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government
       Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Commissioner, College Education, Dr. Radha Krishnan
       Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawt For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

22/04/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has been considered and decided by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Anil Agarwal Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14062/2016)

wherein on 23.03.2022 following order was passed;

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1627/2004 (Dr. Omendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and other connected matters, on 04.07.2011 which reads as under:-

"The only controversy involved in the present matters is regarding treatment of the period of service of the lecturer

(2 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

in a private college. This is for the purpose of grant of benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme (for short "the Scheme").

All the petitioners were initially engaged by the private college followed by their selection and appointment in the Government College.

The respondents refused to count their previous services for advancing the benefit under the Scheme.

It is submitted that similar controversy came up before this Court for consideration in the case of Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.3540/1992 decided on 14th September, 1994. The aforesaid judgment was held by the Division Bench and is recently being up-held by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order 10th March, 2011 whereby the Special Leave Petition filed by the Government has been dismissed. The same controversy was thereupon decided in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Uma Sarma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.744/1998. Recently a special appeal bearing No.6272/2009 has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 06.05.2011 relying upon the case of Dr. Suresh Chand Agarwal (supra) and

(3 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

also the case of Dr. Ram Krishna Agarwal.

        Looking          to       the
        aforesaid,        petitioners
        are entitled for the

benefit arising out the circular dated 18.01.1991 issued by the Government, more specifically the clarification in para 2 of the said circular where no distinction has been made in regard to the nature of management of the institution, about the private/local body/government.

Learned counsel for the respondent/s did not dispute the aforesaid. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed and is ordered to be governed by the judgment referred to above. The cases of petitioners may be considered pursuant to the circular dated 18.01.1991, if they are found entitled for the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme as per the norms prescribed therein then they may be given such benefits.

The respondents are expected to complete the aforesaid exercise expeditiously and, if possible, then within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

Subsequently the similar view was taken by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10536/2018 (Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) decided on 30.09.2021 by observing thus:-

"1. This petition has been filed seeking

(4 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

directions to the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefits of Senior and Selection Scale under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) by taking into account the temporary/ adhoc service of the petitioner and ignoring the entries in APARs which were not communicated to the petitioner in time.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in this petition has already been resolved in Vishveshwar Lal Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.5160/2009, decided on 8-9-2015 and in State of Rajasthan Vs. Milap Chand Jain [(2013) 14 SCC 562] that the entries of APARs which were not communicated cannot be made basis for refusal of selection scale and for counting the temporary service for grant of selection scale.

3.    Learned      counsel
appearing on behalf of
respondents        is     in
agreement       with    the
submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner.

He submits that the petition may be disposed of in terms of the orders in case of Vishveshwar Lal Chodhary (supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Milap Chand Jain (supra).

4. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties,

(5 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

the petition is allowed in terms of the above mentioned Orders.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall beentitled for Senior and Selection scale and other benefits under the CAS by taking into account his temporary service from01.11.1980 to 08.07.1986. The APARs which were not communicated to the petitioner shall not be made basis for refusing the due benefits.

5. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise for grant the due benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-State has also preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1477/2014 against the earlier orders passed by the Single Bench and the same were also dismissed in a batch of Special Appeals (Writ) by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2014. Hence, the controversy involved in this matter has been finally decided and the same has attained finality. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2022 in the case of "Ramswaroop Narwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr." in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23066/2018, decided in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya (supra). He further requests that this petition may be disposed of in the light of the above referred judgments.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the circular dated 18.01.1991 is not applicable in the case of petitioner and the same was applicable to the Career Advancement Scheme, corresponding to the 4th Pay Commission. He further submits that

(6 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

the circular dated 18.01.1991 issued by the Government cannot be applied to the employees who were appointed in private/government colleges after implementation of Career Advancement Scheme corresponding to 4th Pay Commission. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit in view of circular dated 18.01.1991 and the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case.

Heard. Considered.

From the bare perusal of the circular dated 18.01.1991, it is clear that the respondents have not made any distinction that this circular is applicable only in the cases of Career Advancement Scheme corresponding to 4th Pay Commission only. The circular is silent in this regard.

While deciding batch of petitions in the case of Dr. Omendra Singh (supra), this Court has taken a view that the petitioners are entitled for the benefits arising out of the circular dated 18.01.1991 issued by the Government, more specifically in view of the clarification made in Para No.2 of the said circular where no distinction has been made in regard to the nature of management of the institution, about the private/local body/government. This Court is afraid of taking a different view from the view which has already been taken by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr. Omendra Singh (supra), Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya (supra) and Ramswaroop Narwal (supra).

In view of the submissions made above, this petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Laxmi Narayan Arya (supra). The petitioner shall be entitled for Senior Selection scale and other benefits under the CAS by taking into account his services rendered in Agrasen Girls PG College, Hindaun City, District Karauli w.e.f. 12.07.2002 to 09.12.2012. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise for grant of due benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand disposed of."

Counsel for the respondent(s) has not disputed the

submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

(7 of 7) [CW-9965/2018]

In that view of the matter, I disposed of this writ petition in

view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the matter of Dr. Anil Agarwal (supra).

The respondents are directed to complete the exercise for

grant of due benefits to the petitioner within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Chetna/73

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)