Ravi Prakash Mathur vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4492 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014724]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2263/2023

Ravi Prakash Mathur S/o Shri Durga Lal Mathur, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Mathur, Resident Of D-127, U.i.t. Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. The Divisional Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur.

4. The District Education Officer, (Secondary), Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

11/05/2023 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

order in Parbat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP

No.10159/2015, decided on 29.11.2016, which has been followed

in Sriram Balupal and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

SBCWPNo.1024/2018, decided on 20.11.2021 and, therefore,

the present petition may also be allowed in light of and with the

similar directions.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the

fact that issue as raised in the case of Parbat Singh (supra) and

Sriram Barupal (supra).

[2023/RJJD/014724] (2 of 3) [CW-2263/2023]

In the case of Sriram Barupal (supra), it was, inter alia,

directed by this Court as under:-

"In that view of the matter, the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Parbat Singh (supra).

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding taking action under two different orders is concerned, the mere fact that two different orders dealing with promotion as well as ACP are in existence, does not mean the same has to be applied to the same employee.

The deferment of either promotion or ACP, as the case may be, is required to be applied to the subject employee, however, both the circulars cannot be applied to the same employee, for the same cause.

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.

Insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the order dated 15.04.2015 (Annex.-5) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits in accordance with law.

So far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, she would also be governed by same principle i.e. she would be entitled to ACP as and when the same becomes payable to her.

The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioners with the respondents".

In view of the submissions made, petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed in light of and with the similar directions as

given in the case of Sriram Barupal (supra).

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

[2023/RJJD/014724] (3 of 3) [CW-2263/2023]

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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 172-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)