Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramchandra Pandor vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41739) on 2 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:41739]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2288/2023

1.       Ramchandra Pandor S/o Shri Mokasi Pandor, Aged About
         45 Years, R/o Village And Post Jethliya, Tehsil Ghatol,
         District Banswara, Rajasthan.
2.       Devilal Tailor S/o Shri Mangilal Tailor, Aged About 47
         Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Kalayanpura, Tehsil And District
         Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
3.       Amba Lal Kalal S/o Shri Ram Lal Ji Kalal, Aged About 42
         Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Pratapgarh, District
         Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
4.       Hemant Kumar Dungarwal S/o Shri Sohan Lal Dungarwal,
         Aged    About      45    Years,       Resident        Of   Pragati   Nagar,
         Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5.       Dhuleshwar Maida S/o Shri Nakuda Maida, Aged About 46
         Years, Resident Of Village And Post Mudasel, Tehsil
         Ghatol, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
6.       Nirbhya Ram Meena S/o Shri Suraj Meena, Aged About 41
         Years, Resident Of Asli Puriya, Post Dabada, District
         Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
7.       Magan Lal Malvi S/o Shri Gautam Lal Malvi, Aged About
         49   Years,    Resident        Of    Village      Chaniya Khedi,        Post
         Sakariya, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
8.       Nirbhaya Ram Raidas S/o Shri Bhuwan Ji Raidas, Aged
         About 50 Years, Resident Of Talai Mohalla, Ward No. 3,
         Kultana, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
9.       Devi Lal Meena S/o Shri Mangla Meena, Aged About 43
         Years, R/o Hingoriya, Post Lohariya, District Pratapgarh,
         Rajasthan.
10.      Radheshyam Meena S/o Shri Dewaji Meena, Aged About
         40 Years, R/o Village Nagdeda, Post Bedma, Tehsil Arnod,
         District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Secretary,     Rural      Development            And       Panchayati   Raj
         Department,       Government            Of     Rajasthan,      Secretariat,


                       (Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:43:45 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:41739]                       (2 of 5)                        [CW-2288/2023]


          Jaipur.
3.        Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner.
4.        Joint      Director       (Personnel),         Elementary       Education,
          Rajasthan, Bikaner.
5.        District    Education        Officer      (Headquarter),       Elementary
          Education, Pratapgarh.
6.        District     Education         Officer,       (Secondary       Education),
          Pratapgarh.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :   Mr. Ramdev Potalia
For Respondent(s)               :   Ms. Bhawna Jangid, Dy.G.C.



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

02/12/2023

1. Learned counsel for the parties submits that issue involved in

the present writ petition is no more res-integra as the same has

been covered by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court in Navneet Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12100/2020) decided on

04.09.2023, which reads as follows:-

"1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2020 and order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexures-11 & 12, respectively), whereby the respondents have reviewed the earlier order by which actual / notional benefits were granted to the petitioner. By way of impugned order the recovery of the amount paid in excess has also been initiated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not mislead or misrepresented and

[2023:RJ-JD:41739] (3 of 5) [CW-2288/2023]

benefits which were granted to him by the respondent

- State was in accordance with law. It was submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 13.08.2019 in the case of Dal Chand Jat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3063/2019.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the only difference in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) and the present case is that in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) the recruitment was of the year 2012-2013, whereas in petitioner's case the same pertains to year 2006.

4. Ms. Bhawna Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) and the same is pending consideration and therefore, the present writ petition be kept pending.

5. However, learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the position of law, as has been settled by this Court in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra).

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending, particularly when an interim order has been passed in petitioner's favour by this Court on 12.11.2020.

7. In the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra), this Court has held thus:

"After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record of the case, this Court finds that the purport of the case law mentioned above are that the petitioners, who were equally entitled and eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.-III where out of advertisement of 2012-2013 at level I and level II for various subjects are to be treated

[2023:RJ-JD:41739] (4 of 5) [CW-2288/2023]

at par with each other. The discrimination on account of joining duties due to various bone of contentions relating to eligibility and qualifications have been nullified by aforesaid judgments, including in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and since all the candidates who are now found eligible and as per existing case law and the judgments of the Apex Court, they have to be treated at par with each other. There cannot be any doubt regarding expressions made by this Court in the previous litigation that these all the petitioners who stand in merit and who have qualified 2012-2013 recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade-III would be entitled for the notional benefits for the purpose including pay fixation and seniority from the date their equivalent or lesser merit person in that phase of recruitment was given such benefits. This Court also finds that focal averment raised by the respondents that no monetary benefits can be accorded to the petitioners for the period when they were not actually discharging services, is also a consistently answered in the precedent of law laid down by this Court. Thus, taking strength from the same precedent of law as cited by counsel for the parties, these petitions are disposed off with a direction to the respondents that petitioners shall be paid the notional benefits, including benefits of seniority and pay fixation from the stage when the appointment of persons at the same or lesser merit were appointed. However, no monetary benefits where the petitioners not having discharged actual services would be payable. Needless to say that any notional fixation or any notional benefits which has resulted into current payment and current position where the petitioners are discharging their services, shall not be recovered and shall be continued to be paid.