Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saddik Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12) on 2 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:12]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21252/2024
Saddik Mohammad S/o Shri Yakub Khan, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Village Sherna, Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Jalore (Rajasthan).
4. Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioner Welfare,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment delivered by Jaipur Bench of this Court
in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs. The State of
Rajasthan, SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on 20.01.2014,
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:12] (2 of 2) [CW-21252/2024]
vacation even if appointment is after 31 st December.
No justification is given by the s 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. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be
satisfied if his representation is decided in the backdrop of the
order dated 20.01.2014 rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (supra).
3. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a
comprehensive representation before the respondents ventilating
all his grievances.
4. In case such a representation is filed within two weeks from
today, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to
consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order,
in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation
along with a certified copy of the order instant.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
15-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
