Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dhanraj Nagda vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 November, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:38051]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2191/2023
Dhanraj Nagda S/o Shri Ramchandra Nagda, Aged About 43
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Soobi, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri,
District Pratapgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner.
4. Joint Director (Personnel), Elementary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
5. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Pratapgarh.
6. District Education Officer, (Secondary Education),
Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Dev Patolia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by
Mr. Rishi Soni.
Mr. Hemant Choudhary.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/11/2023
1. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that issue
involved in the present writ petition 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
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:37:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38051] (2 of 4) [CW-2191/2023]
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
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).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:37:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38051] (3 of 4) [CW-2191/2023]
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:
"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
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:37:33 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38051] (4 of 4) [CW-2191/2023]
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.
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 petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure-4) is quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
4-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
