[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Barda Ram Bhil vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9763) on 24 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9763]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4686/2026
1. Barda Ram Bhil S/o Shri Bhuwana Ram Bhil, Aged About
58 Years, R/o V/p Gangithala, Teh Jahajpur, Dist. Bhilwara
(Raj.)
2. Shambhu Lal Harijan S/o Shri Bhagirath Harijan, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o V/p Pander, Teh- Jahajpur, Dist-
Bhilwara (Raj.)
3. Phool Singh Meena S/o Shri Soram Meena, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Biramta, Post- Biletha, Teh- Jahajpur,
Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
4. Usha Nagar D/o Shri Prabhu Lal Grag, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir Railmagra, Teh- Railmagra,
Dist- Rajasamand (Raj.)
5. Manmohan Soni S/o Shri Radheshyam Soni, Aged About
58 Years, R/o 13-D-4 New Bhupalnagar, Bhilwara Dist-
Bhilwara (Raj.)
6. Axayraj Singh Jhalla S/o Shri Udai Singh Jhalla, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o Sahada, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
7. Chhatrapal Singh Purawat S/o Shri Lal Singh Purawat,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Akola Purawaton Ka,
Post- Kodukota, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
8. Susheela Jat D/o Both Lal Jat (W/o Lehru Lal Jat), Aged
About 61 Years, R/o Water Works Ke Samne Pur Road,
Jawahar Nagar, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
9. Seema Rathi D/o Ladu Ram Rathi, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o G-225 Azad Nagar Bhilwara, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
10. Lalita Tailor D/o Bhanwer Lal Tailor (W/o Amit Kumar
Tailor, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 63 Extention West,
Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, Dist.- Bhilwara (Raj.)
11. Saroj Sharma D/o Shri Banshi Lal Sharma (W/o
Purushottam Paliwal), Aged About 57 Years, R/o G 250
Subhash Nagar Bhilwara, Dist.- Bhilwara (Raj.)
12. Abha Sharma D/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About
56 Years, R/o 6-E-34 New Housing Board, Near Soni
Hospital Shastri Nagar Bhilwara, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
13. Sharda Purohit D/o Chotu Lal Purohit (W/o Prem Kumar
Upadhyay), Aged About 49 Years, R/o Gega Ka Khera,
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 05:09:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:53:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9763] (2 of 4) [CW-4686/2026]
Post- Gega Ka Khera, Tehsil- Kotri, Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
14. Parvati Upadhyay D/o Purushottam La Upadhyay (W/o
Shanti Sagar Chaturvedi), Aged About 50 Years, R/o E-
44/4 Staff Colony Adityapuram, Tehsil- Chittorgarh, Dist-
Chittorgarh (Raj.)
15. Indira Baheti D/o Bhagchand Baheti (W/o Ghanshyam
Jhanwar), Aged About 49 Years, R/o Chittor Road Begun,
Tehsil- Begun, Dist- Chittorgarh (Raj.)
16. Mukesh Kumar Swarnkar S/o Rampal Swarnkar, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o 8E-22 R.c. Vyas Colony Bhilwara,
Dist- Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Department Of Finance, Through The Secretary
(Finance), Secretariat Building, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Director (Secondary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.)
4. The Director (Elementary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.)
5. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Bhilwara (Raj.).
6. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Bhilwara (Raj.)
7. The District Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Chittorgarh (Raj.).
8. The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),
Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh for Mr. BL Jat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 05:09:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9763] (3 of 4) [CW-4686/2026]
24/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ application, is no
more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs.
The State of Rajasthan:SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on
20th January, 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 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."
2. Learned counsel further submits that, for the present, the
petitioners would be satisfied if the State-respondents to address
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 05:09:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9763] (4 of 4) [CW-4686/2026]
his representation within a time frame in the backdrop of the
order dated 20th January, 2014 in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within
two weeks hereinafter.
3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ
proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address
a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating
their grievances.
4. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid
period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide
the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along
with a certified copy of this order.
5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the
writ application stands disposed of. Stay petition also stands
disposed of accordingly.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/308-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 05:09:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
