Ram Singh Patel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23232)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1268 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Singh Patel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23232) on 14 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:23232]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9565/2025

1.       Ram Singh Patel S/o Shri Kesharm, Aged About 50 Years,
         R/o Gram Post Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. At
         Present Posting Mggs, Madhopura, Luni, Jodhpur.
2.       Mahipal Singh S/o Madho Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/
         o Village Sarecha, Post Sarecha, Tehsil Luni, District
         Jodhpur. At Present Posting As Lecturer At Gsss Luni,
         Jodhpur.
3.       Hira Ram Vishnoi S/o Shri Bhalla Ram Vishnoi, Aged
         About 54 Years, R/o Village Feench, Post Feench, Tehsil
         Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present Posting At
         Gsss Goliya Magra, Luni, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of    Education,       Government            Of      Rajasthan,    Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4.       The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
         Jodhpur.
5.       The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
         Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

14/05/2025

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

[2025:RJ-JD:23232] (2 of 3) [CW-9565/2025]

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 31st 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 (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 petitioner to file a

comprehensive representation before the respondents ventilating

all his grievances.

[2025:RJ-JD:23232] (3 of 3) [CW-9565/2025]

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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 50-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)