Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:754]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21863/2024
1. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi S/o Mathura Lal Sharma, Aged
About 48 Years, I-66, Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara, Tehsil And
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. Pukhraj Sukhwal S/o Manohar Lal Sukhwal, Aged About
49 Years, Bank Ki Taraf Sunaro Ka Mohalla, Sahada,
Bhilwara (Raj.).
3. Shanti Lal Khatik S/o Magani Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
Bakan, Tehsil Raipur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
4. Devi Singh Rajput S/o Pratap Singh Rajput, Aged About
46 Years, Ummedpura, Koshithal, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
5. Yeshpal Regar S/o Magan Lal Regar, Aged About 47 Years,
Regar Mohalla, Suwana, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
6. Hari Prakash Jat S/o Ramchandra Jat, Aged About 49
Years, Nahargarh, Thalkalan, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
7. Sangeeta Somani, W/o Jagdish Chandra, Mantri
Laxminath Ji Ki Gali, Kachola, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
8. Nathu Lal Suthar S/o Rampal Suthar, Aged About 47
Years, Mali Mohalla, Kachol, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
9. Nand Lal Kumhar S/o Bholu Ram Kumhar, Aged About 50
Years, Village Nahargarh, Post Office Thal Kalan, Kachola,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
10. Kailash Chandra Regar S/o Gulab Chand Regar, Aged
About 48 Years, Regar Mohalla, Suwana, District Bhilwara
(Raj.).
11. Sangeeta Chaplot W/o Yogendra Singh Mehta, Aged
About 46 Years, House No.43, Sanganer Road Kanchan
Vihar Colony, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
12. Durgawati Meena W/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About
46 Years, Police Line, Near Sangam School, Santohs
Colony, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
13. Udai Lal Balai S/o Devi Lal Balai, Aged About 48 Years,
Balai Mohalla, Gatheela Khera, Atun, District Bhilwara
(Raj.).
14. Shambhu Lal Meena S/o Raghunath Meena, Aged About
49 Years, Nei Jahajpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
15. Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Gajanand Sharma, Aged About
[2025:RJ-JD:754] (2 of 4) [CW-21863/2024]
48 Years, 04 Behind Amit Palace, Rama Vihar, Near St.
Anslems School, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
16. Mamta Kabra W/o Pankaj Kumar Chandak, Aged About 46
Years, Bhati Colony, Behind Krishi Mandi, Bijainagar,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
17. Mukesh Kumar Kanvliya S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 48
Years, Darjiyon Ki Gali, Badnor, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
18. Kishan Singh Rawat S/o Ben Singh Rawat, Aged About 49
Years, Bichchhudara, Mogar, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
19. Gendi Lal Meena S/o Mangi Lal Meena, Aged About 47
Years, C-455, Azad Nagar, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
20. Mahaveer Prashad Tailor S/o Nagaji Ram, Aged About 57
Years, Kamla Bhawa B-545, Vivekanand Nagar, Ward
No.47, Santosh Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.).
21. Ramesh Chandra Regar S/o Nanu Ram Regar, Aged About
9 Years, 60, Sadar Bazar Sangariya, Bhilwara (Raj.).
22. Jagdish Prasad Teli S/o Nathu Lal Teli, Aged About 49
Years, Hawaldaro Ka Mohalla, Sangariya, Bhilwara (Raj.).
23. Ramdev Bairwa S/o Gokul Bairwa, Aged About 48 Years,
Bairwa Mohalla, Biliya, Bhilwara (Raj.).
24. Shivraj Jhanwar S/o Rameshwar Prasad Jhanwar, Aged
About 55 Years, B-99, R K Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary
Department Of School Education, Secretariat Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Bhilwara.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
[2025:RJ-JD:754] (3 of 4) [CW-21863/2024]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 : S.B. Civil Writ Petition 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
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."
[2025:RJ-JD:754] (4 of 4) [CW-21863/2024]
2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would
be satisfied if their representations (which they would be filing
within two weeks from today) are 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 petitioners to file
comprehensive representations before the respondents ventilating
all their 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 representations
along with a certified copy of the order instant.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
30-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
