Kalu Ram Dindor vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8616 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35480]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8637/2020

Kalu Ram Dindor S/o Shri Badiya, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Dabadi Maal, Post Barwala Ragiya, Tehsil Ambapura, District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, 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. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, Rajasthan.

6. District Education Officer, Headquarter (Elementary Education), Banswara.

7. District Education Officer, (Secondary Education), Banswara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Durga Ram Kawadia for Dr. Bhawna Jangid

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

17/10/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure-5), whereby

the respondents have reviewed the earlier order by which actual /

notional benefits were granted to the petitioner. By way of

[2023:RJ-JD:35480] (2 of 4) [CW-8637/2020]

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. Mr. Durga Ram Kawadia associate of Dr. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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 10.09.2020.

6. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:35480] (3 of 4) [CW-8637/2020]

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

[2023:RJ-JD:35480] (4 of 4) [CW-8637/2020]

from the stage when the 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."

7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

8. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure-5) is

quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

9. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 41-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)