Kishna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 72 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1602/2019

Kishna Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 71 Years, Outside Suraj Pole, Shanti Nagar, District Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education (Secondary), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Department Of Education (Secondary), Bikaner.

3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore.

4. Additional Director, Pension And Pensioner Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rishabh Tayal
                                Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shrawan Kumar
                                Mr. Ravi Panwar



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                     Order

04/01/2023

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 18.04.2013, whereby the petitioner was directed to be paid

the notional benefits on the post of Principal.

The brief facts to be noted in the present writ petition are

that the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service

Commission on the post of Lecturer (School Education in History)

in the year 1984 and thereafter, he was appointed as such vide

order dated 19.10.1984. The petitioner was posted as Lecturer

(History) vide order dated 22.10.1984 in Senior Secondary

(2 of 4) [CW-1602/2019]

School, Dhorimanna, Barmer against the vacant post. After

completing the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed on

the post of Lecturer (History) w.e.f. 5.11.1986. Thereafter, vide

order dated 28.08.2003, the petitioner was placed on the higher

post i.e. Principal on Patay Vetan but he was continued to receive

salary in the same pay band and grade of the post of Lecturer

(History). The petitioner thereafter got superannuated in the year

2008. After superannuation of the petitioner, the department

considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of

Principal and he was found suitable for the vacancies of the year

2005-06. The petitioner was granted the pay scale for the post of

Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006 as the order dated 18.04.2013 reflects

the date of fixation in the pay scale of the petitioner on the post of

Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

petitioner had performed the duties of Principal, therefore he may

be granted the actual benefits of salary, etc. w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that grant of

notional benefits is denying the fruits of the services rendered by

the petitioner on the post of Principal, more particularly when the

DPC found him suitable for promotion on the post of Principal

w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (writ)

No.821/2019 :: The State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi Narayan Soni

decided on 31.07.2019. He therefore prays that the writ petition

may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may be extended the

actual consequential benefits on the post of Principal w.e.f.

01.09.2006.

(3 of 4) [CW-1602/2019]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

submitted that since the petitioner has accepted the promotion on

the basis of the scheme floated by the State Government for

performing the duties on higher post on Patay Vetan basis,

therefore, the actual benefits cannot be granted to him. He,

therefore, prays that the orders passed by the respondent on

18.04.2013 does not warrant any interference and the writ

petition is prayed to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case including the order

impugned in the present case.

The petitioner was duly selected on the post of School

Lecturer and while performing the duties of Lecturer, he was

promoted on the post of Principal in the year 2003 on the basis of

Patay Vetan. Subsequently, the DPC considered the case of the

petitioner and found him suitable to hold the post of Principal on

regular basis and thereafter issued promotion order in favour of

the petitioner after the date of his superannuation i.e. on

18.04.2013. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the actual

benefits to the petitioner on the post of Principal, more

particularly, he was performing the duties of that post since the

year 2003. The denial of the benefits on the post of Principal is

arbitrary and unreasonable for all intents and purposes. The

petitioner was performing the duties of Principal since 2003,

however he was substantively promoted on that post by

considering his case in the DPC held after his superannuation. The

relevant para of the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench in the

case of Laxmi Narayan Soni (supra) is reproduced as under :-

(4 of 4) [CW-1602/2019]

"In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the learned Single Judge's directions given that all the petitioners were eligible at the time when they were given temporary appointment; they did not fulfill the description or fall within the exception of Rule 28(2) and most importantly all of them were eligible and could have been promoted with effect from the date they were made to officiate temporarily as Principals. But for the fact that no DPC was held, all of them were subsequently selected through regularly constituted DPC. In these circumstances the denial of salary and all benefits to them from the date of their initial temporary appointment (having regard to their subsequent selection and appointment on regular basis against the vacancies for the earlier period), could not be held to be arbitrary."

This Court feels that since the petitioner was performing the

duties of Principal, therefore the benefits accruing therefrom are

required to be paid to him.

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ

petition merits acceptance and same is allowed. The respondents

are directed to extend all the actual consequential benefits to the

petitioner on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.The

respondents are also directed to comply with the directions issued

by this Court within a period of two months from the date of the

receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 197-Praveen/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)