[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Ojha vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:14377]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6813/2026
1. Rajesh Ojha S/o Shri Krishna Ojha, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o 492, Near Mahalaxmi Temple, Manak Chowk, Aauwa,
Tehsil Marwar Junction District Pali Rajasthan At Present
Posted At Mg-Gsss, Dhanla, District Pali Rajasthan.
2. Bhagwan Singh Gaur S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Village Birwara, Post Farkiya, Tehsil
Kekri, District Ajmer (Retired)
3. Prithvi Raj Singh Gaur S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Mohan Nagar Colony, Ward No. 6,
Ajmer Road, Kekri, Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer Rajasthan
At Present Posted At Gsss, Nimod, Block Kekri, Disetrict
Ajmer Rajasthan.
4. Jorawar Singh Gaur S/o Raghunath Singh, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Virwada, Post Farkiya, Tehsil Kekri,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan At Present Posted At Pms Gsss,
Sakriya, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer Rajasthan.
5. Rajendra Singh Gaur S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o Kalyan Colony, Ajmer Road, Kekri,
District Ajmer Rajasthan At Present Posted At Gsss, Para,
Block Sawar, District Ajmer Rajasthan.
6. Deepti Sharma D/o Nandlal Sharma, Aged About 56
Years, D/o , Aged About Years, R/o Village Sakriya, Tehsil
Kekri, District Ajmer At Present Posted At Ggsss, Baghera,
District Ajmer Rajasthan.
7. Mukhtiyar Bano D/o Fakeer Mohammad Khan, Aged About
57 Years, R/o New Bhatta Colony, Baghera Road, Kekri,
Ajmer Rajasthan At Present Posted At Mggsss Dadiya
Block Arani, District Ajmer Rajasthan.
8. Gopal Lal Gurjar S/o Jagannath Gurjar, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Lasadiya, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer At
Present Posted At Ggsss Devgav, Block Kekri, District
Ajmer.
9. Hukam Chand Parewa S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Parewa, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o House No. 90/3, Near Ajmeri Gate,
Kekri, District Ajmer Rajasthan At Present Posted At Gsss,
Chhota Lamba, Anrai, District Ajmer Rajasthan.
10. Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:43:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14377] (2 of 4) [CW-6813/2026]
Ward No. 12, New Colony, Haripur, Raipur, District Pali
Rajasthan.
11. Chhotu Dan Sandu S/o Shri Chandi Dan Sandu, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o 10, Charnon Ka Mohalla, Anewa,
District Pali Rajasthan At Present Posted At Mangleshwar
Mahadev Gsss, Mada, Desuri District Pali Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Education,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer.
5. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Pali.
6. The District Education Officer, (Secondary/elementary),
Ajmer.
7. The District Education Officer, (Secondary/elementary),
Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat
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:
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14377] (3 of 4) [CW-6813/2026]
"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."
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14377] (4 of 4) [CW-6813/2026]
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.
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
200-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:44:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
