Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:31717]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9452/2020
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Kumbha Ram Chouhan, Aged About 39
Years, C/o House No. 17-3/1678, Near Veer Sawarkar
Government School, Raiko Ki Dhani, Rajendra Nagar Vistar,
Tehsil And District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.
5. The Principal/PEEO, Government Senior Secondary School
Jhintra, Panchayat Samiti Rohat, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat for Mr. Kailash
Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa with Mr. G.S. Chouhan
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
26/09/2023
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 01.02.2019 (Annex.4) and recovery
order dated 25.08.2020 (Annex.-5), 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:31717] (2 of 4) [CW-9452/2020]
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. 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 petitioner's
favour by this Court on 21.09.2020.
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
equally entitled and eligible to be appointed
on the post of Teacher Gr.-III where out of
[2023:RJ-JD:31717] (3 of 4) [CW-9452/2020]
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 appointment of
persons at the same or lesser merit were
[2023:RJ-JD:31717] (4 of 4) [CW-9452/2020]
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 01.02.2019 (Annex.4) and
recovery order dated 25.08.2020 (Annex.-5) are hereby quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner.
9. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
578-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
