[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chakrapani Mehru vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19240/2025
1. Chakrapani Mehru S/o Shri Shambhu Singh, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Mahaveer Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Anita Chawla W/o Shri Hem Raj, Aged About 53 Years, R/
o Mahaveer Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Bhakar Ram Vishnoi S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Village Tilwasani, Tehsil Pipar City, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Shyam Singh Parihar S/o Shri Chammpa Lal, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Naya Bas, Chainpura, Mandore Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
5. Kailash Ram S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Village Deshwal, Tehsil Merta, Nagour, Rajasthan.
6. Dushyant Kumar Kachhwaha S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Nagori Bera, Mandore, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
7. Badri Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Achal Singh, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Village Baglop, Kalyanpur, Barmer,
Rajasthan.
8. Naina Ram Chaudhary S/o Shri Mangilal Chaudhary, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Road No. 6, Shakti Nagar, Paota C
Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Gutha Ram Lamror S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Village Khajwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
10. Sohan Singh S/o Jethu Singh Inda, Aged About 62 Years,
R/o Nandri, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11. Sunita Tailor W/o Madan Lal Solanki, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 304, Dilip Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
12. Nand Kishore Singhal S/o Shriram Singhal, Aged About
60 Years, R/o B-75, Vinayak Vihar, Near Birla School,
Jodhpur Rajasthan.
13. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Shri Vishveshwar Lal, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Village Kancharra @
Kanchpur, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:59:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 02:45:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14411] (2 of 4) [CW-19240/2025]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition, is no more
res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek
Vs. The State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
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
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:59:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14411] (3 of 4) [CW-19240/2025]
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 for the petitioners further submits that, for
the present, the petitioners would be satisfied if the State-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:59:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14411] (4 of 4) [CW-19240/2025]
respondents to address their 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 petitioners 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 these observations and directions, as indicated above,
the writ petition as well as stay petition are disposed of.
6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(FARJAND ALI),J
33-divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:59:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
