Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:430) on 3 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 62/2019
Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Shri Heera Lal Sharma, Aged About 62
Years, By Caste Brahmin, The Then Panchayat Extension Officer,
Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara At Present Residing At
95, Prag Nagar Colony, Vijay Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary - Cum -
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
03/01/2025
1. Petitioner before this Court seeks review and recall of an
order/judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 3651/2017 by a co-ordinate Bench (then seized of the
matter) of this Court.
2. At the very outset, a query was posed to learned counsel for
the petitioner as to what is the grievance of the petitioner so as to
seek recall of detailed order dated 24.08.2018, whereby, his writ
petition was, in fact, allowed? A further query was posed as to
whether, by recalling the said order, the petitioner would instead
like his petition to be dismissed?
[2025:RJ-JD:430] (2of 4) [WRW-62/2019]
3. Responding to the second question, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that as far as allowing of the main petition vide
order under review i.e. dated 24.08.2018 is concerned, the
petitioner is fully satisfied with relief already granted. However, he
is not in agreement with the reasons assigned in the order under
review leading to the grant of relief.
4. If that be so, it was for the department to have challenged
the order dated 24.08.2018, vide which the main petition was
allowed assuming that the same was done based on wrong
reasoning. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his petition stands
allowed, as he had prayed for.
5. Consequentially, the answer to the first query posed to the
petitioner is also naturally in the negative. Therefore, no recalling
of the order under review is warranted at the instance of the
petitioner.
6. However, to allay the fears of the petitioner, reference may
be had to the concluding part of the order dated 24.08.2018,
which reads as "accordingly all these writ petitions are allowed and he
decisions taken by the respondents to the detriment of the petitioners regarding
grant of pay protection are declared as null & void for facilitating grant of
consequential benefits in terms of aforesaid verdict."
In light of the aforesaid clear directions given in the order
dated 24.08.2018, vide which petition was allowed, it is,
therefore, safe to assume that the prayer made in the main
petition stands allowed. Same has, therefore, to necessarily result
in according of the benefits arising there from, by implementing
the operative/concluding part of the judgment rendered in favor of
the petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:430] (3of 4) [WRW-62/2019]
7. For ready reference prayer in the writ petition, which has
been allowed, reads as under:-
"i. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated
09.05.2016 (Annexure-9), passed by the respondent authorities may
kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set aside up to the extent
whereby the respondent authorities have taken decision to grant the
benefits of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of
service to the petitioner while counting service w.e.f. 23.10.1989
instead of w.e.f. 12.05.1982.
ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent
authorities may kindly be directed to grant the benefit first, second
and third selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of
service from the date of granting semi-permanent status i.e. w.e.f.
12.05.1982 and further be directed to make proper fixation in the
respective pay-scales with all consequential benefits.
iii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents
may kindly be directed to make proper fixation and pay entire arrears
to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with the
stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
8. In view of the aforesaid prayer it stands to reason that as far
as the order impugned in the writ petition, the same since stands
quashed, thus in terms of prayer (i) the petitioner is held entitled
to all the benefits of selection scale w.e.f. 12.05.1982.
8.1. Further more, since the petition has been allowed, prayer (ii)
as above also has to be treated as granted. The benefit of
selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service
w.e.f. 12.05.1982 i.e. the date of granting semi permanent status
has to be therefore accorded to the petitioner after proper fixation
in the respective pay scales with all consequential benefits.
8.2. Prayer (iii) is also self speaking which already stands granted
vide order under review.
9. In the parting, I may hasten to add that it is/was open to the
department to challenge the order dated 24.08.2018, of which
petitioner has sought review herein. Having consciously chosen
not to assail the said order, the respondents are at this stage
bound to implement it, as it has attained finality.
[2025:RJ-JD:430] (4of 4) [WRW-62/2019]
10. With the aforesaid observations, the review petition is
disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
75-AK Chouhan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
