Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Susheel Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003734]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15016/2018
Susheel Kumar S/o Jai Ram Makar, Aged About 29 Years, Keriya
Makara, Post Padu Khurd, Tehsil Riya Badi, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary-Cum-
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pratapgarh.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Riyabari, Distt. Nagaur.
5. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Arnod,
Distt. Pratapgarh.
6. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Riyabari, Distt. Nagaur.
7. The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Arnod, Distt. Pratapgarh.
8. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Mota Dhamniya,
District Pratapgarh.
9. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Lampolai
(Riyabadi) District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Verma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
03/02/2023
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature thereof thereby, order dated 02.09.2015
(Annex.-04) and 04.12.2017 (Annex.-5) may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be
directed to regularise the service of the petitioner and
fixation of his salary in the regular pay scale be made,
as per Rule 27-B of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951.
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:07:09 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003734] (2 of 3) [CW-15016/2018]
iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature thereof thereby, the respondent may kindly be
directed to follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of
the RSR as per law while dealing with the cases of the
petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc.
iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be
directed to make fixation of salary of the petitioner,
transfer of services record of the petitioner on the
present posting place of the petitioner and to give & last
pay certificate (L.P.C.) to the petitioner,
v) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the
nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be
directed to pay due salary of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
controversy involved in the present petition is no more res-
integra, as it is decided by this Court in Dhanraj Meena Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12846/2017) along with other connected matters, decided
on 15.01.2018, which reads as follows:-
"It may be noticed that the reference made to Rule
24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale)
Rules, 2006, which appears to be incorrect and must be
read as Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
The said judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar
Yadav (supra) has been followed in the case of Chandra
Kala Saini (supra), which pertains to the same
recruitment i.e. recruitment of 2013, wherein, following
the judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav
(supra) and quoting the said judgment, it has been
observed as under:-
"Learned counsel further urged that instant batch of writ
applications be also disposed off in terms of the order in
the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), for
subsequent to adjudication, a notification has also been
issued by the State-respondents in consonance with the
adjudication in the case aforesaid on 30th October,
2017, carrying out an amendment in Rule 24 of the
Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 11:07:09 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003734] (3 of 3) [CW-15016/2018]
In view of the above; the instant batch of writ
applications stands disposed off in the case of Praveen
Kumar Yadav (supra), as extracted herein above.
Needless to observe that the State-respondents would
ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit
permitting the petitioners to join at their respective
place of posting, if already (3 of 4) not joined, as
expeditiously as possible; preferably within four weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.
"
In view of the specific provision i.e. second proviso
to Rule 24 of RSR as well as the judgment of this Court in
the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and Chandra
Kala Saini (supra), the stand taken by the respondents in
orders dated 2.9.2015 (Annex.R/1) and 4.12.2017
(Annex.R/2), is without any basis.
In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already
been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by
this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court
directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.
It is further directed that the respondents while
dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to
their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules
24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.
In cases where the petitioners have been relieved
provisionally under the directions of this Court, the
Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to
relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay
certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier."
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the same
terms and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner, keeping into consideration order rendered in the matter
of Dhanraj Meena (supra). All pending applications stand
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
14-Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
