Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sahi Ram Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23476) on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:23476]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9715/2025
1. Sahi Ram Bishnoi S/o Meera Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Village Post Guda Vishnoiyan, Tehsil
Luni, District Jodhpur. At Present Posted As Senior
Teacher, Gsss Khara Bera Purohitan, Luni, District
Jodhpur.
2. Usha Rani W/o Rajendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of B-14, Guru Kripa, Shree Ram Nagar,
Near Pf Office, Jhanwar Road, Jodhpur. At Present Posted
As Lecturer At Ggsss Rajmahal, Gulab Sagar, Jodhpur.
3. Roop Kanwar Chouhan W/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
59 Years, Resident Of Circuit Hose Road, 82, East Patel
Nagar, Ratanada, Jodhpur. At Present Posted As Lecturer
At Gsss, Sanwla Kalan, Tehsil And Block Pipar, District
Jodhpur.
4. Bhanwari Soni W/o Avinash Shekhar Soni, Aged About 53
Years, Resident Of 06, Near Ramdev Mandir, Raika Bag,
Jodhpur. At Present Posted As Lectuer At Gsss, Sanwla
Kalan, Tehsil And District Block Pipar, District Jodhpur.
5. Mridula Rajwanshi W/o Jitendra Kumar Goyal, Aged About
53 Years, Resident Of B-10, Mahaveer Coloney, Near
Bhaskar Circle, Ratanada, Jodhpur. At Present Posted As
Vice Principle, Gsss Badlia, Block Dhawa, District Jodhpur.
6. Mahendra Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of Bhatiyon Ki Pol, Goojrawas, Malkosni,
Jodhpur. At Present Posted As Lecturer At Gsss, Sanwla
Kalan, Tehsil And Block Pipar, District Jodhpur.
7. Ramesh S/o Kaluram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of
2/1542-A, Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board, Basni First
Phase, Jodhpur. At Present Posted At Gsss Khudala, Block
Dhawa, District Jodhpur.
8. Babu Lal S/o Harji Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident
Of Meghwalon Ki Dhani, Pali At Present Posted At Gsss
Jeriya, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of School
Education, Government, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:49:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23476] (2 of 4) [CW-9715/2025]
2. Department Of Finance, Through Secretary Finance,
Secretariat Building, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
5. Chief District Education Officer, Jodhpur.
6. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apurva Raj Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/05/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by
judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3534/2009 Yogesh Kumar Pareek vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 20.01.2014 in the
following terms:
"Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of salary of summer
vacation and shifting of date of increment and other
benefits.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23476] (3 of 4) [CW-9715/2025]
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
respondents 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.
This also disposes of stay application."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners
may be permitted to file an appropriate representation in light of
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Yogesh
Kumar Pareek (Supra) for redressal of their grievances.
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate
representation for redressal of their grievances before the
respondents, and the respondents are directed to decide the same
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind
[2025:RJ-JD:23476] (4 of 4) [CW-9715/2025]
the directions issued by this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (Supra).
4. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to
examine the representation so filed by the petitioners
independently, and if the case of the petitioners is squarely
covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (Supra), the same benefit shall be extended; otherwise
the respondents will be free to examine the case of the petitioners
on its own merits and pass a speaking order.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
24-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
