Rajasthan High Court
Ratnesh Kumar S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1742/2022
Ratnesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Surendra Kumar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village Bambora Tehsil Kishangarh District Alwar
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education)
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner
3. Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education),
Zila Parishad, Alwar (Raj.)
4. District Elementary Education Officer, Alwar Rajasthan
5. Block Elementary Education Officer, Ramgarh, Alwar,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sudesh Kasana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
26/05/2022
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 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.
The case of the petitioner is that she was
offered a compassionate appointment on
(2 of 3) [CW-1742/2022]
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
(3 of 3) [CW-1742/2022]
post under any
circumstances."
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 respondent(s) has not disputed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in
view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the matter of Jyoti Khatri (supra).
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Chetna/232
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
