Devendra Kumar Chanchawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6330 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26949]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12316/2023

Devendra Kumar Chanchawat S/o Shobhag Mal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o 36 Ward No 15, Gandhi Chowk, Salumber District Salumber, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary-Cum-

Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Salumber.

5. Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Udaipur.

6. Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Salumber.

7. District Elementary Education Officer, Udaipur.

8. District Elementary Education Officer, Salumber.

9. Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, P.s. Jhallara, District Salumber.

10. Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, P.s. Salumber, District Salumber.

11. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.

School, Dholagir Kheda, District Salumber.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

24/08/2023

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following

reliefs:-

"(i). The respondents may kindly be directed to be given benefits of selection grade (9, 18, 27

[2023:RJ-JD:26949] (2 of 3) [CW-12316/2023]

years) & increments counting petitioner services from his initial date of appointment 27.09.1985 (Annex.1) when he was appointed as contractual untrained teacher and grant other consequential benefits.

(ii). The respondents may kindly be directed to be given benefits of seniority considering notional benefits since his initial date of appointment 27.09.1985 and grant other consequential benefits."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted

that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been

settled by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur vide its

judgment dated 07.07.2017 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.589/2015 : State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram and

other connected matters.

3. In the case of Chandra Ram (supra), the Division Bench in

relation to the controversy involved has held thus :

"The Controversy is covered by Full Bench decision passed on 03.07.2017 wherein, it has been held as under:

..........

...........

39. Question C The contention of the counsel for the employees is required to be accepted and it cannot be annulled unless it has been annulled by appropriate authority. However, the benefits shall not be withdrawn but in future when the benefits are to be accorded for further promotion, the same will be considered on the basis of new law declared by the Supreme Court i.e. period will be considered from the date of regularization. When the future benefit of 9, 18and/or 27 will be considered their ad-hoc service will not be considered for the purpose of benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27 years. But if benefit has already been granted for all the three scales; the same shall not be withdrawn and no recovery will be made from the employees.

40. QUESTION D In view of our answer in above matters, it is very clear that for the purpose of regularisation the

[2023:RJ-JD:26949] (3 of 3) [CW-12316/2023]

date of regularisation will be from the date of regular appointment.

In that view of the matter, there cannot be two dates for the purpose of seniority and the other benefits. However, earlier services will be considered for the purpose of the same if there is a shortage in pensionary benefits.

In view of the above, all the appeals deserve to be allowed and the same are allowed. Stay applications are disposed of."

4. The present writ petition is disposed of in above noted terms

of the judgment in the case of Chandra Ram (supra).

5. The respondents are directed to do the needful within a

period of two months of receiving the certified copy of the order

instant, which the petitioner would place.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

7. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 127-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)