[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deburam Bajiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20409) on 29 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:20409]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6494/2026
Deburam Bajiya S/o Harjiram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Punas,
Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of School Education,
Government Of, Secretariat Building, Jaipur.
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, Nagaur.
6. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Nagaur.
7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Piyush Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
29/04/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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:
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:51:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20409] (2 of 3) [CW-6494/2026]
"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.
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 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 petitioner prays that the petitioner
may be permitted to file an appropriate representation in light of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:51:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20409] (3 of 3) [CW-6494/2026]
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Yogesh
Kumar Pareek (Supra) for redressal of his grievances.
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate
representation for redressal of his 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
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 petitioner
independently, and if the case of the petitioner 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.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
59-Taruna/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:51:57 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
