Rajasthan High Court
Manju Indolia vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 March, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21479/2017
Manju Indolia Wife Of Shri Dinesh Singh, D/o Shri Bhagwan
Singh Indolia, R/o Near Patthar Ki Taal, Anah Gate, Bharatpur
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajashtan, Through Secretary To Government Of
Rajasthan, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Bharatpur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashrut Sharma for
Mr. UP Gaur
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
28/03/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in this petition have been considered by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the matter of "Smt. Sunita Rathore Vs.
State & Ors." in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8722/2010 decided on
22.11.2011 wherein it has been held as under:-
"The grievance of the petitioner is
that despite of judgment in his own case
decided along with connected with
petitions headed by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5951/2008 - Sumt. Priti Dixit Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., appointment order
was issued in favour of the petitioner in
the month of November, 2009 though
judgment in favour of the petitioner was
given on 07.01.2009. In the earlier
(2 of 3) [CW-21479/2017]
judgment in the case of the petitioner, he
was held eligible for appointment on the
post of Prabodhak. On account of delay in
giving the appointment to the petitioner in
compliance of the judgment earlier,
petitioner was not extended the benefit of
due fixation of salary from the date of
judgment. Accordingly, the respondents be
directed to allow the salary tot he
petitioner for the post of Prabodhak w.e.f.
7.1.2009 with all consequential benefits
and if actual benefits is not given, then
appointment may be treated notionally
from 7.1.2009 and he may be given all
consequential benefits which include
seniority position as well as other benefit.
Learned AAG, Mr. Naqvi, appearing
on behalf of the respondent-State submits
that petitioner would be extended notional
benefit of appointment w.e.f. 7.1.2009 i.e.
the date of judgment in the case of
petitioner himself wherein he was held
eligible for the post of Prabodhak.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to consider the
petitioner's appointment on the post of
Prabodhak w.e.f. 7.1.2009. However, the
petitioner would not be entitled for the
actual benefit, but his period of service
would be counted w.e.f. 7.1.2009 for all
practical purposes. The actual benefit may
now be made admissible to the petitioner
from the date of this judgment to be
calculated notionally w.e.f. 7.1.2009. The
compliance of the order may be made
within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order."
None is present to oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed
representation along with copy of the order dated 22.11.2011
passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sunita Rathore (supra).
The respondents are directed to consider and decide the
representation within a period of two months from the date of
receiving of certified copy of this order.
(3 of 3) [CW-21479/2017]
Stay application and all pending applications stand disposed
of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
