Balwant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7372 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30477]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 463/2022

1. Sharwan Sangawa S/o Shri Natha Ram Sangawa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Pattidron Ka Bass, Tarnau, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

2. Bhala Ram Choudhary S/o Khima Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vill/post-Nagani, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi (Raj.). At Present -Agsss-Amlari, Tehsil And Dist. Sirohi, Rajasthan.

3. Ranju Parmar D/o Shri Bhoma Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Village And Post- Morthala, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

4. Mithilesh Kumawat S/o Kailash Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Apna Ghar Shiv Colony, Near Panchayat Samiti Kesarganj Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

5. Rathod Basu Kunvar D/o Mul Sinh, Aged About 43 Years, Village And Post Tarapura, Tehsil- Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

6. Shaitanmal Garg S/o Shri Sukhdevji Garg, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Khakharwara, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

7. Suresh Kumar S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Purohiton Ka Bass Kasindra Achpura, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sirohi.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1508/2022

1. Balwant Singh S/o Shri Durjan Singh, Aged About 31

[2023:RJ-JD:30477] (2 of 5) [CW-463/2022]

Years, R/o Nayakheda, Post Gogara, Tehsil Sumerpur, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.

2. Manju Choudhary D/o Pusa Ram Choudhary, W/o Arjun Lal,, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Banjakudi, Tehsil Jaitaran, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sirohi.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chauhan

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

19/09/2023

1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 20.12.2021, whereby the respondents

have reviewed the earlier order by which actual / notional benefits

were granted to the petitioners. By way of impugned order the

recovery of the amount paid in excess has also been initiated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have not mislead or misrepresented and benefits which

were granted to them 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-

[2023:RJ-JD:30477] (3 of 5) [CW-463/2022]

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. K.K. Bissa, 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 petitioners'

favour by this Court on 12.01.2022 and 07.02.2022.

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:30477] (4 of 5) [CW-463/2022]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:30477] (5 of 5) [CW-463/2022]

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, both the writ petitions are allowed.

8. The impugned order dated 20.12.2021 is quashed and set

aside qua the petitioners.

9. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 422-423-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)