Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Moti Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:2894]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 659/2025
1. Moti Singh S/o Banne Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Bhoonas, Tehsil Mertacity, Dist. Nagaur Raj. At Present
Posting Gsss Chakdhani, Block Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Chhotu Singh Shekhawat S/o Banne Singh, Aged About
62 Years, R/o Village Bhoonas, Tehsil Mertacity, Dist.
Nagaur Raj. Last Posting Gsss Datani, Dist. Nagaur.
3. Sangram Singh S/o Umed Singh Rathore, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Vpo Gingaliya, Tehsil Makrana, Dist. Didwana-
Kuchaman Raj. Last Posting Gsss Asarwa, Block Makrana,
Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman.
4. Shimbhu Nath S/o Gopi Nath, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village Gangarda, Post Kalru, Tehsil Mertacity, Dist.
Nagaur, Raj. Last Posting Gsss Kalru, Block Mertacity,
Dist. Nagaur.
5. Sita Ram Maruka S/o Radha Kishan, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Ward No. 20 Kuchera, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. At
Present Posting Gsss Dhehari, Block Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
6. Nathu Ram Lomror S/o Hukma Ram Lomror, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Gujariyawas Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. At
Present Posting Gsss Manglod, Block Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
7. Sangram Singh Rathore S/o Datar Singh, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Village Rasaliyawas, Tehsil Riyabari, Dist.
Nagaur, At Present Gups Based, Block Parbatsar, Dist.
Didwana- Kuchaman.
8. Pabu Ram Vishnoi S/o Salu Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/
o Chak Dhani, Rajod, Tehsil Degana, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.
Last Posting Gsss Punas, Block Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
9. Mehboob Khan S/o Jeewan Khan, Aged About 55 Years,
Dindarpura, Via Beri Chhoti, Tehsil- Didwana, District-
Didwana- Kuchaman. At Present Posting Sahid Sultan
Khan Gsss Cholukha, Dist. Didwana- Kuchaman.
10. Ibrahim Khan S/o Akbar Khan, Aged About 53 Years,
Village And Post- Nuwa, Via Beri Chhoti, Tehsil Didwana
District- Didwana- Kuchaman. At Present Posting Bangar
Gsss, Didwana, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman.
11. Hanuta Ram Jat S/o Goverdhan Ram, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Manda Basni, Post And Tehsil Didwana
[2025:RJ-JD:2894] (2 of 4) [CW-659/2025]
District- Didwana- Kuchaman. At Present Posting ,mggs
Mandabasni, District- Didwana- Kuchaman.
12. Ayub Khan S/o Naju Khan, Aged About 58 Years, Resident
Of Village- Chhapari Kalla, Post- Chhapari Kalla, Tehsil
Didwana District- Didwana- Kuchaman. At Present Posting
Gsss Alakhpura Didwana District- Didwana- Kuchaman.
13. Umaram S/o Gumanaram, Aged About 57 Years, Resident
Of Begsar, Tehsil- Didwana, District- District- Didwana-
Kuchaman Nagaur. At Present Posting Gsss Akoda,
District- Didwana- Kuchaman.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Education,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Joint Director, Education Department, Ajmer Zone
Ajmer.
5. The District Education Officer, (Secondary / Elementary),
Nagaur.
6. The District Education Officer, (Secondary / Elementary),
Didwana-Kuchaman.
7. The Chief Block Education Officer, Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
8. The Chief Block Education Officer, Mertacity, Dist. Nagaur.
9. The Chief Block Education Officer, Makrana, Dist.
Didwana-Kuchaman.
10. The Chief Block Education Officer, Parbatsar, Dist.
Didwana-Kuchamana
11. The Chief Block Education Officer, Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
12. The Chief Block Education Officer, Degana, Dist. Nagaur.
13. The Chief Block Education Officer, Didwana, Dist.
Didwana-Kuchaman.
----Respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:2894] (3 of 4) [CW-659/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/01/2025
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, 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
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:2894] (4 of 4) [CW-659/2025]
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 petitioners would
be satisfied if their representation (which they would be filing
within two weeks from today) 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 petitioners to file a
comprehensive representation 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 representation
along with a certified copy of the order instant.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
14-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
