Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hamer Lal Gameti vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:33320] (1 of 3) [CW-15488/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15488/2023
Hamer Lal Gameti S/o Kalu Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Behvadiya Post Chhali Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur,
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. Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Udaipur.
5. District Elementary Education Officer, P.s. Gogunda,
District Udaipur.
6. Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, P.s. Gogunda,
District Udaipur.
7. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Mada, P.s. Gogunda, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dungaram Kavadia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
06/10/2023
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 08.07.1986
when he was appointed as contractual untrained
teacher and grant other consequential benefits.
[2023:RJ-JD:33320] (2 of 3) [CW-15488/2023]
(ii). The respondents may kindly be directed to
be given benefits of seniority considering notional
benefits since his initial date of appointment
08.07.1986 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:33320] (3 of 3) [CW-15488/2023]
In that view of the matter, there cannot be
two dates for the purpose of seniority and the
other benefits. However, 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
179-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
