[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Chand Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14379) on 27 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14379]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6812/2026
1. Dinesh Chand Meena S/o Chandan Lal Meena, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Vpo Bamanwas Khurd Liwali Road Mandi Ke
Pass, District Sawai Madhopur Presently Posted At
Government Senior Secondary School Sirsali Bamanwas
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Jai Singh Meena S/o Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Adalpur, Post Machedi, Teh Todabheem,
District Karauli, Presently Posted At Government Senior
Secondary School Maheshwara Kalan, Dausa, Rajasthan.
3. Banwari Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Sahay Meena, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Vpo Amawara Teh Bamanwas,
District Sawai Madhopur Presently Posted At Government
Senior Secondary School Sirsali, Teh Bamanwas, District
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
4. Sitaram Meena S/o Badri Ram Meena, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Village Kushalpura Lalsot, Dausa Rajasthan.
5. Mohanlal Bairwa S/o Shri Prabhati Lal Bairwa, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Village Jharna Post Gangdwari Dausa
Presently Posted At Government Senior Secondary School
Shyampura Kalan Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan.
6. Chiranji Lal Meena S/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Dobla Khurd Ramgarh Pachwara Dausa
Presently Posted At Government Senior Secondary School
Shyampura Kalan Lalsot Dausa, Rajasthan.
7. Chhagan Lal Meena S/o Narayan Meena, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Village Ajabpura Post Shivsinghpura, Teh
Nijhrna, Dausa Presently Posted At Pm Shri Government
Senior Secondary School Ramgarh Pachwara, Dausa,
Rajasthan.
8. Prahlad Meena S/o Prabhati Lal Meena, Aged About 54
Years, Vpo Gandrava, Teh Bahrawanda District Dausa At
Presently Posted At Government Senior Secondary School
Bhandari Sikandra Dausa Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:53:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:43:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14379] (2 of 4) [CW-6812/2026]
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer, (Secondary Education),
Dausa, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Dausa, Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer, (Secondary Education),
Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan.
7. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balkishan Saini
Mr. Yogesh Pareek
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
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:53:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14379] (3 of 4) [CW-6812/2026]
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 for the petitioner further submits that, for
the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the State-
respondents to address 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 he is ready and willing to
address within two weeks hereinafter.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:53:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14379] (4 of 4) [CW-6812/2026]
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 his
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 off.
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
199-poojatak/-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:53:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
