Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Talka Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:31449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14587/2023
1. Talka Ram S/o Hameera Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Meghwal Vas, Rana Chowk, Reodar Tehsil Reodar District
Sirohi.
2. Foja Ram Rawal S/o Bhoma Ram Rawal, Aged About 59
Years, R/o 144, Opposite Govt. Sr. Sec. School,
Magriwara, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
3. Abbas Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, Aged About 58 Years, R/
o Near Khati Vav, Mandar Tehsil Reodar District Sirohi.
4. Mafat Lal Joshi S/o Bhema Ram Joshi, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Aam Circle Magriwara, Tehsil Reodar, District
Sirohi.
5. Soma Ram Meghwal S/o Dharmaram Meghwal, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Meghwal Vas, Rana Chowk, Reodar,
Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
6. Ranaram S/o Visa Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Indra
Coloy Mandar, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
7. Shokat Ali Rangrej S/o Vali Mohammad, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Indra Coloy, Reodar, Tehsil Reodar, District
Sirohi.
8. Meetha Ram Joshi S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o Dhanava Colony, Anadra, Tehsil Reodar, District
Sirohi.
----Petitioners
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, Sirohi.
4. Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Sirohi.
5. District Elementary Education Officer, Sirohi.
6. Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, P.s. Reodar,
District Sirohi.
7. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Sonela, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
[2023:RJ-JD:31449] (2 of 4) [CW-14587/2023]
8. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Jetawada, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
9. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Malipura (Sonela), P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
10. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Mahatma Gandhi
Govt. School, Reodar, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
11. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Magriwara, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
12. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Selwada, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
13. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Anadra, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
14. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.
School, Varman, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Bhawna Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/09/2023
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following
reliefs:-
"(1) The respondents may kindly be directed to be
given benefits of selection grade (9, 18, 27 years) &
increments counting their services from their initial
date of appointment 16.10.1985, when they were
appointed as contractual untrained teacher and grant
other consequential benefits.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to be
given benefits of seniority considering notional
benefits since her initial date of appointment
16.10.1985 and grant other consequential benefits.
[2023:RJ-JD:31449] (3 of 4) [CW-14587/2023]
(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. Dr. Bhawna Jangid, 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, 18
and/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:31449] (4 of 4) [CW-14587/2023]
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 petitioners would place.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
115-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
