Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43721) on 24 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:43721]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17803/2024
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Kansara Chowk, Sagwara, Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Department Of Finance, Through The Secretary
(Finance), Secretariat Building, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Director (Elementary Education), Rajasthan Bikaner
(Raj.)
4. The Chief District Education Officer (Headquarters),
Dungarpur (Raj.)
5. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Sangwa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
24/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits
that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely
covered by judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3534/2009 Yogesh Kumar
Pareek vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on
20.01.2014 in the following terms:
"Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of salary of
summer vacation and shifting of date of increment and
other benefits.
[2024:RJ-JD:43721] (2 of 3) [CW-17803/2024]
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, petitioner was entitled for
benefit of service and salary for summer vacation.
Respondents denied aforesaid 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 illegal, inasmuch
as the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of salary of
summer vacation as he is covered 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.
This also disposes of stay application."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner
may be permitted to file an appropriate representation in light of
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Yogesh
Kumar Pareek (Supra) for redressal of their grievances.
[2024:RJ-JD:43721] (3 of 3) [CW-17803/2024]
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate
representation for redressal of their grievances before the
respondents, and the respondents are directed to decide the same
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind
the directions issued by this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (Supra).
4. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to
examine the representation so filed by the petitioner
independently, and if the case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by the judgment rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek
(Supra), the same benefit shall be extended; otherwise the
respondents will be free to examine the case of the petitioner on
its own merits and pass a speaking order.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
67-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
