Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fateh Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 December, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:44985]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19720/2023
Fateh Singh Chouhan S/o Bhairav Singh, Aged About 58 Years,
Tokwasa, Aspur District Dungarpur, 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. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School Badi Virva, Block Jhallara, District Salumber.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
21/12/2023
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 years) & increments
counting petitioner services from his initial date of
appointment 10.07.1986 when he was appointed as
contractual untrained teacher and grant other consequential
benefits.
[2023:RJ-JD:44985] (2 of 3) [CW-19720/2023]
(ii). The respondents may kindly be directed to be given
benefits of seniority considering notional benefits since his
initial date of appointment 10.07.1986 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. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
4. 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 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,
[2023:RJ-JD:44985] (3 of 3) [CW-19720/2023]
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."
5. The present writ petition is disposed of in above noted terms of
the judgment in the case of Chandra Ram (supra).
6. 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.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
612-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
