[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Lal Khokhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13657) on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13657]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6249/2026
Ram Lal Khokhar S/o Hariram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Merta
City Road, Khokharo Ki Dhani, Gotan, Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through 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) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
23/03/2026
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:
"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
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13657] (2 of 3) [CW-6249/2026]
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.
This also disposes of stay application."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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).
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:48:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13657] (3 of 3) [CW-6249/2026]
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.
5. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
69-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:48:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
