Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jamana Shanker Menaria vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 November, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16928/2022
1. Jamana Shanker Menaria S/o Shri Rang Lal Menaria, aged
about 48 Years, R/o Village Post Vana Tehsil Bhindar,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ghanshyam Lal Menaria S/o Shri Shobha Lal Menaria,
aged about 48 Years, R/o Village Post Menar, Tehsil
Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Department of School
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Building, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Department of Finance through Secretary Finance,
Secretariat Building, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishanpal Singh Bhati.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
11/11/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment delivered by Coordinate Bench of this
Court (at Jaipur Bench) in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs.
(2 of 3) [CW-16928/2022]
The State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on
20.01.2014, observing thus:-
"It is stated that petitioner was appointed on
regular basis on the post of Teacher vide order dated
24.01.1992. After joining on 28.01.1992, petitioner
was entitled for benefit of service and salary for
summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid
benefit and increment was shifted to the month of
March despite of joining of petitioner in the month of
January. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to
pay salary of summer vacation and also the date of
increment be made to January, 1993. The officer-in-
charge of the respondents could not justify the action
of the respondents, inasmuch as Circular dated
28.07.2003 clarified that if employee has been
appointed on regular basis on probation then he
would be entitled for salary of summer vacation even
if appointment is after 31st December. No justification
is given by the s for denial of benefit of increment
from January other than erroneously correlating it
with the benefit of selection scale and thereby,
shifting it by 48 days. I find the action of respondents
is illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled for the
benefit of salary of summer vacation as he is covered
by the Circular. The petitioner should be given
increment counting his service from the date of
joining and not by shifting it to the month of March.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and
consequential benefit would be given to the petitioner
as referred above. He would be entitled to other
benefits based on appointment order dated
24.01.1992 and his joining on 28.01.1992, thus
benefit of selection scale would also be determined."
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be
satisfied if their representation (which they would be filing within
two weeks from today) is decided in the backdrop of the order
dated 20.01.2014 rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek
(supra).
In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a
comprehensive representation before the respondents ventilating
all their grievances.
(3 of 3) [CW-16928/2022]
In case such a representation is filed within two weeks from
today, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to
consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order,
in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation
along with a certified copy of the order instant.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
132-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
