Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil Kumar Atal vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41753) on 2 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:41753]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15885/2023

1.       Ram Khiladi Meena S/o Shri Durga Lal Meena, Aged About
         51 Years, R/o Village Khedla (Vijaypura), Post Badoli,
         Tehsil Gangapur City, Rajasthan At Present Posting Gps
         Manldalda, Block Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.
2.       Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Prithvi Lal Meena, Aged About
         45 Years, R/o Kusay, Post Raipur, Tehsil Gangapur City,
         District     Sawai        Madhopur,          At    Present       Posting    Gups
         Daulatpura, Block Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.
3.       Kailash Chandra Yadav S/o Badri Narayan Yadav, Aged
         About 52 Years, R/o Rajpura, Tehsil Shahpura, District
         Jaipur,      At     Present        Posting        Gsss        Phusariya,    Block
         Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.
                                                                          ----Petitioners
                                          Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of      Education,         Government             Of      Rajasthan,       Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
         Chittorgarh.
5.       Chief       Block      Education         Officer,      (Elementary),        Block
         Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.
                                                                        ----Respondents
                                    Connected With
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11994/2023
1.       Dashrath Singh Gurjar S/o Mahaveer Singh Gurjar, Aged
         About 30 Years, Basara, Sikandra, District Dausa.
2.       Shakshee Nama D/o Ghanshyam Dutt Nama, Aged About
         34 Years, 14, Major Kanwal Singh Nagar, Chor Dungari,
         District Alwar.
3.       Dhagla Ram S/o Kesu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Dudiyo
         Ka Bas, Khari Khurd, Jodhpur.
                                                                          ----Petitioners


                           (Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:43:58 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:41753]                    (2 of 6)                       [CW-15885/2023]


                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of    Education,      Government             Of      Rajasthan,    Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
         Jodhpur.
5.       Chief Block Education Officer (Elementary), Sam, Baori,
         Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14069/2023
Jaygopal Purohit S/o Natwar Lal Purohit, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Kheteswar Kalp, 107, In Front Of Sastri Udhyan, Dr.
Sampurnand Colony, Sirohi (Raj.) At Present Posting Gups,
Verapura (Makroda), District Sirohi.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of    Education,      Government             Of      Rajasthan,    Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
         Sirohi.
5.       Chief Block Education Officer, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
6.       Peeo, Government Senior Secondary School, Makroda,
         Sirohi.
                                                                  ----Respondents
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14691/2023
1.       Sunil Kumar Atal S/o Kailash Chand Atal, Aged About 32
         Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Regaro Ka Mohalla, Udaipuria,
         Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
2.       Reena Jain W/o Nitil Jain, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 20
         Dukan Ke Peeche, Swastik Colony, Kherwara, District

                      (Downloaded on 02/12/2023 at 08:43:58 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:41753]                      (3 of 6)                       [CW-15885/2023]


          Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3.        Chhattar Singh Rao S/o Gopal Singh Rao, Aged About 40
          Years, R/o Ravo Ka Sayra, Sayra, District Udaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
          Of      Education,       Government           Of      Rajasthan,    Jaipur,
          Rajasthan.
2.        The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
          Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.        Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4.        The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
          Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :   Mr. Tanwar Singh
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 petitions 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

[2023:RJ-JD:41753] (4 of 6) [CW-15885/2023]

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 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:

[2023:RJ-JD:41753] (5 of 6) [CW-15885/2023]

"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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:41753] (6 of 6) [CW-15885/2023]

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that no recovery in line with the aforesaid observations be made from the petitioners."

8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

9. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 and order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexures-11 and 12, respectively) are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

10. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly."

2. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed and the

impugned orders dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-3 in SBCWP

Nos.15885/2023 & 11994/2023); 08.09.2023, 04.09.2023 &

11.08.2023 (Annexure-5, 4 & 3 in SBCWP No.14069/2023) and

11.08.2023 (Annexure-3 in SBCWP No.14691/2023) are quashed

and set aside qua the petitioners.

3. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

125-128 Zeeshan