Hanumanaram Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5810 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1231/2018

Bhanwar Lal Rao S/o Shri Banna Ram Jat, Resident Of Village Gudabadi, Post Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu And Presently Posted At Govt. Girls Upper Primary School, Badabar, Beeo/ps Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Churu.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The District Education Officer Elementary Education, Churu.

5. The Block Development Officer Cum Beeo, Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh, District Churu.

6. The Headmaster, Govt. Girls Upper Primary School, Badabar, Beeo/ps Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 868/2018 Girdhari Lal Godara S/o Shri Dana Ram, Resident Of Village/ Post Baghasara Purvi, Post Shobhasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu And Presently Posted At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Gandhi Basti, Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. The District Education Officer Secondary Education, Churu.

5.    The    Block      Development            Officer,          Panchayat   Samiti


                                            (2 of 4)                     [CW-1231/2018]


       Sujangarh, District Churu.

6. Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Gandhi Basti, Sujangarh, District Churu.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1232/2018 Hanumanaram Nayak S/o Shri Dhura Ram, Resident Of Village/ Post Sandawa, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu And Presently Posted At Govt. Adarsh Higher Secondary School Parewada, Ps Bidasar, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

4. The District Education Officer Secondary Education, Churu.

5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh, District Churu.

6. Principal, Govt. Adarsh Higher Secondary School Parewada, Ps Bidasar, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

21/04/2022

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners were appointed as Teacher Grade-III vide

appointment order dated 12.12.1988 and they joined on

14.12.1988. After completion of the probation period, they were

(3 of 4) [CW-1231/2018]

confirmed vide order dated 23.06.1993 w.e.f. the initial date of

appointment i.e. 14.12.1988. The petitioners were even granted

ACP after completion of 9 and 18 years, that too, w.e.f. the date of

initial appointment i.e. 14.12.1988.

Vide the impugned orders dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-5),

13.10.2017 (Annexure-5) & 13.10.2017 (Annexure-5)

respectively, recovery has been sought to be made from the

petitioners for the amount paid excess after 29.06.2009 on the

premise that the benefit of ACP was wrongly granted from the

initial date of appointment.

Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish

Narayan Chaturvedi reported in (2009) 12 SCC 49 and further

the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal

(Writ) 1866/2018; State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kanta

Sharan decided on 22.01.2020.

The facts in the case of Smt. Kanta Sharan (supra) are

almost akin to the present matters. Therein also the same issue

whether the period of service as a temporary employee was to be

counted for the purposes of grant of ACP or not was in

consideration. The Division Bench while considering the said issue

observed as under:

"But in the instant case, the fact that the temporary appointment of the respondent vide order dated 3.12.85 was followed by order dated 7.6.90, whereby her services were confirmed from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 3.12.85 is not disputed and thus, for all intent and purposes, the respondent deserves to be treated regular employee from the date of her initial appointment.

(4 of 4) [CW-1231/2018]

Moreover, the appellants having accorded the first and second selection grade to the respondent on completion of 9 and 18 years of service, counted from the date of her initial appointment, there is no reason why for the purpose of grant of third selection grade, the services rendered by her before the confirmation on the post of Teacher Gr.II, vide order dated 7.6.90, should be excluded for the purposes of grant of third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service."

In the present cases too, it is an admitted fact that the

services of the petitioners were confirmed on 23.06.1993 w.e.f.

the initial date of appointment i.e. 14.12.1988. Therefore, the

ratio as laid down in the case of Kanta Charan (supra) is directly

applicable in the present matter too.

In view of the discussion above, the present writ petitions

are allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.05.2017,

13.10.2017 & 13.10.2017 respectively, are quashed and set aside.

It is held that the petitioners would be entitled to the 3 rd selection

Grade on completion of 27 years of service while counting their

services from their initial date of appointment i.e. 14.12.1988. All

consequential benefits shall follow.

(REKHA BORANA),J 110 to 112-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)