Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishor Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 October, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8610/2020
Kishor Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Rasliyavas, Via Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director (School Education), Ajmer Zone, Ajmer.
4. The District Education Officer (HQ), Secondary, Nagaur,
District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for
Mr. Hemant Choudhary, G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
18/10/2022
The present petition has been filed with a prayer for
consideration of service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.02.1996, the
date of his initial appointment on the post of PTI Gr.II.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as PTI
Gr.II with Shri Sai Nath Vidhya Mandir (private institute) on aided
post. In the year 2010, a scheme was introduced by the State
Government for absorption of employees of private institutes
(working on aided post) with the State Department and in
pursuance to the same, the petitioner also applied but his
application was rejected on the ground that he was not working on
a sanctioned and aided post. Aggrieved against the said action,
the petitioner preferred a writ petition which was allowed vide
judgment dated 26.08.2013 and the respondent authorities were
(2 of 3) [CW-8610/2020]
directed to absorb the petitioner with the State Department with a
specific finding that the petitioner was working on a sanctioned
and aided post. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In
pursuance to the said judgment, vide order dated 02.07.2014, the
petitioner was ultimately appointed/absorbed with the State
Department. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the
purposes of all service benefits, the State Department is
considering his date of appointment to be 02.07.2014 whereas the
same ought to be considered w.e.f. 27.02.1996, the date of his
initial appointment as PTI Gr.II.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 5(iv) of
the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for
short hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules of 2010').
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the petitioner was absorbed with the State Department w.e.f.
02.07.2014 and that would only be the relevant date for
consideration for grant of all future service benefits. Learned
counsel further submitted that even in terms of Rule 5(iv) of the
Rules of 2010, the State Department would be under an obligation
to grant benefit of ACP for the period after his absorption with the
State Department only.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Rule 5(iv) of the Rules of 2010 reads as under:
"(5) (iv) The employees appointed under these rules
shall not be entitled for any promotion till they attain
the age of superannuation. However, they shall be
allowed benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career
Advancement Scheme as allowed to other employees of
the State Government. The period from the date of
their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts
(3 of 3) [CW-8610/2020]
would be counted for the purpose of grant of Assured
Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme."
A perusal of above provision makes it clear that the
employees appointed under the Rules of 2010 would be entitled to
benefit of ACP/Career Advancement Scheme as allowed to other
employees of the State Government. The above provision also
makes it specifically clear that the date of their appointment on
the sanctioned and aided post would be the relevant date for the
purposes of grant of ACP.
In the present matter, in view of the judgment dated
26.08.2013, there can be no contrary conclusion on the fact that
the petitioner was working on a sanctioned and aided post and
therefore, the initial date of his appointment i.e. 27.02.1996,
would only be the relevant date for the purposes of Rule 5(iv).
Learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the legal
position as emerging from Rule 5(iv) of the Rules of 2010.
In view of the specific provision of Rule 5(iv), the present
writ petition deserves to be and is allowed. It is directed that the
petitioner be granted benefits of ACP considering his initial date of
appointment i.e. 27.02.1996. It is further made clear that the
State Department would be liable to pay benefits qua the arrears
of the ACP only for the period post 02.07.2014 in terms of Rule
5(vii) of the Rules of 2010.
The necessary orders be passed in favour of the petitioner
within a period of three months from receipt of the present order.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
78-T.Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
