Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Dinesh Kumar (2024:Rj-Jd:39829) on 25 September, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:39829]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9865/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary
Education, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu Zone Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Sister-In-Law/o Sh. Heera Lal, By Caste
Meghwal R/o Village Khakawasi, Post Khiciwala, Via
Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu
2. Dalip Chan, Lecture (Political Science) At Govt. Sr.
Secondary School Kikarwali, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
25/09/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition, is no
more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Jorawar Singh Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.555/2005, decided on 07.11.2006, and a judgment
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench
in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs. The State of
Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition 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, petitioner
was entitled for benefit of service and salary for
summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid
[2024:RJ-JD:39829] (2 of 2) [CW-9865/2024]
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 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."
2. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed
and the judgment passed by learned Rajasthan Civil Services
Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur in Appeal No. 154/2019
is upheld. The State Authorities shall comply with the judgment
passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.
(FARJAND ALI),J
76-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
