Rajasthan High Court
Manisha Yadav D/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7382/2020
Manisha Yadav D/o Late Shri Surajbhan Yada, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Rajdhoki, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan), At
Present Posted At Government Upper Primary School, Kokawas,
Block Mundawar, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Panchyat Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
4. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Alwar.
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Mundawar, District
Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, A.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
12/05/2022
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 Jyoti Khatri Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
12231/2016) wherein on 20.12.2021, the following order was
passed:-
"The present petition has been filed
with the prayer for the confirmation and
regularization of the services of the
petitioner and also for the fixation of
regular pay-scale and other benefits.
(2 of 3) [CW-7382/2020]
The case of the petitioner is that she
was offered a compassionate appointment
on the post of Teacher Grade-III vide Order
dated 26.02.2014 and since then she is
performing on the said post without any
hindrance. The petitioner completed her
probation period on 26.02.2016 and after
the same she applied for regularization of
the services and fixation of the regular
payscale but till date no orders for the said
reliefs have been passed by the said
Department.
Hence, the present petition has been
filed.
Reply has been filed on behalf of the
State Government taking the stand that
the Government issued an order dated
22.08.2014, whereby the Grade Pay of
Teacher Grade-III has been increased from
Grade Pay-10 to Grade Pay-11 w.e.f.
01.07.2013 for the post of Teacher Grade-
III. Therefore, the petitioner could not
have been appointed under the Rajasthan
Compassionate Appointment of
Dependents of Deceased Government
Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as the Rules of 1996) on the said post.
It has further been averred that in
pursuance to the order dated 22.08.2014,
letter dated 02.09.2014 was issued by the
Director, Elementary Education directing
the implementation of the said order.
Therefore it has been contended that
the appointment of the petitioner was
erroneous and in light of the order dated
22.08.2014, all such candidates would be
granted a fresh appointment on the post of
LDC.
I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.
Admittedly, in furtherance to the
alleged order dated 22.08.2014, no
effective order has been passed by the
Department and the petitioner continues to
be in service on the same post till date.
Moresoover, Rule 6(2) of the Rules of
1996 provides as under:
"Once an appointment has been
made on any post under these Rules,
the benefit intended under these rules
shall be deemed to have been availed
and the case shall not be re-opened for
appointment to any other post under
any circumstances."
(3 of 3) [CW-7382/2020]
A perusal of the above provision
makes the intention of the Legislature
clear. It cannot be said that the provision
would apply only to the detriment of the
employees and not for the benefit of them.
A provision cannot be termed to be a
tool in the hands of the employer to use
whenever it is not beneficial for the
employee and not to be operated whenever
it is vice-versa.
In the present case, the petitioner
had been appointed way back on
26.02.2014 and the alleged order of the
State Government is of 22.08.2014. Had
the intention of the Department been to
act upon the same, the same would have
been implemented way back in the year
2014 itself. No action in terms of the said
order has been taken till date and now the
petitioner cannot be left at the whims and
wishes of the Department.
Even otherwise, in view of Section
6(2) of the Rules of 1996, a compassionate
appointment order once made cannot be
reopened in any circumstances.
Therefore, the present petition of the
petitioner deserves to be allowed.
The respondents are directed to pass
appropriate orders for grant of regular pay
scale to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of the
completion of the probation period in terms
of law.
All the consequential benefits payable
to her also to be granted to her within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
With these directions, the present
petition is allowed."
Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed
of in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
court in the matter of Jyoti Khatri (supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /66
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
