Rajasthan High Court
Vimla Choudhary D/O Jagdish Narayan ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:6386) on 7 February, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:6386] (1 of 3) [CW-1343/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1343/2024
Vimla Choudhary D/o Jagdish Narayan Coudhary, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 7, Vinayak Vihar, Ganpatpura, Mansaorovar Extn.
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division,
Jaipur.
4. The District Education Officer, Headquarter, Secondary
Education, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini,
Mr. Aamir Khan
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
07/02/2024
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ application, is no
more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs.
The State of Rajasthan: SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on 20th
January, 2014, observing thus:
"It is stated that petitioner was appointed on
regular basis on the post of Teacher vide order
dated 24.01.1992. After joining on 28.01.1992, pe-
titioner was entitled for benefit of service and salary
for summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid
[2024:RJ-JP:6386] (2 of 3) [CW-1343/2024]
benefit and increment was shifted to the month of
March despite of joining of petitioner in the month
of January. Accordingly, the respondents be directed
to pay salary of summer vacation and also the date
of increment be made to January, 1993.
The officer-in-charge of the respondents could not
justify the action of the respondents, inasmuch as
Circular dated 28.07.2003 clarified that if employee
has been appointed on regular basis on probation
then he would be entitled for salary of summer
vacation even if appointment is after 31st
December. No justification is given by the
respondents for denial of benefit of increment from
January other than erroneously correlating it with
the benefit of selection scale and thereby, shifting it
by 48 days. I find the action of respondents is ille-
gal, inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled for the
benefit of salary of summer vacation as he is cov-
ered by the Circular. The petitioner should be given
increment counting his service from the date of
joining and not by shifting it to the month of March.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and
consequential benefit would be given to the
petitioner as referred above. He would be entitled to
other benefits based on appointment order dated
24.01.1992 and his joining on 28.01.1992, thus
benefit of selection scale would also be
determined."
Learned counsel further submits that, for the present, the
petitioner would be satisfied if the State-respondents are directed
to consider and decide his representation within a time frame in
the backdrop of the order dated 20th January, 2014 in the case of
Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra), which they are ready and willing to
address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ
proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address
a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating his
grievances.
[2024:RJ-JP:6386] (3 of 3) [CW-1343/2024]
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid
period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide
the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along
with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the
writ application stands disposed of.
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.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Seema/100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
