Allowed

Partu Ram Raigar v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2008CW/61/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that a petitioner promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk based on qualifications valid under the prevailing law and judicial view at the time could not be reverted following a subsequent change in legal interpretation, as such reversion violated principles of settled law and fairness.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 06/12/2000 reversing the petitioner from LDC to Class IV is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is restored to the post of Lower Division Clerk with consequential benefits.

Partu Ram Raigar Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

CWP 61/01

¶2

//1//

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.61/2001 Parturam Raigar Versus State & (2) Ors

¶5

Date of Order ::: 08/04/08

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶7

Ms. Srijna Shreshtt for Mr. CL Saini, for petitioner Mr. Shivlal Meena, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondent-State

¶8

Instant petition has been filed assailing
order dt.06/12/2000 whereby petitioner was
reverted from the post of Lower Division Clerk to
the cadre of Class IV on the premise that the
promotion on the post of LDC is not legally
sustainable now in the light of judgment of this
Court.

¶9

Petitioner was appointed as Class IV

¶10

employee on 07/12/1971 and acquired qualification
of Prathma Examination from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan Allahabad in the year 1984, which at one
point of time, was considered to be equivalent to
matriculation, however, amendment was made in
sub-rule (2) of R.12 of Rajasthan Subordinate
Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 vide
notification dt.28/06/1985 given effect from
01/04/85. Petitioner was promoted as LDC vide
order dt.20/03/1991 on the basis of seniority.
But the controversy remained pending as to what
will be effect of qualification of Prathma and

¶11

CWP 61/01 //2//

¶12

whether it can be considered as equivalent after
amendment for the purposes of appointment/
promotion to the post of LDC.

¶13

After petitioner was promoted and working

¶14

for almost nine years, the controversy was
decided by Full Bench in Shanker Lal Verma Vs.
RSEB [1999 (1) WLC-1] - in the light whereof,
all such persons like petitioner being promoted
as LDC for their qualification of Prathma from
Hindi Sahitya Samelan or other equivalent
certificate course, were reverted back to the
cadre of Class IV vide order dt.06/12/2000.

¶15

Counsel for petitioner submits that
controversy was examined by this Court (DB) in

¶16

State of Rajasthan Vs. Manilal Joshi (Special
Appeal No.828/02 decided on 25/11/02 at principal

¶17

seat Jodhpur) observing ad infra:

¶18

“On 12/04/93, the decision of this
Court which was holding field as on
that date favoured his promotion, in
fact until decision rendered in Jagdish
Nath Vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1995(1)
page 74), a Division Bench of this
Court has held that persons acquiring
qualification prior to 18/06/85 will
continue to be eligible for promotion
even for subsequent years also. The
same view has been reiterated in D.B.
Civil Special Appeal No.137/96, State
of Raj. Vs. Kastoor Singh and others.

¶19

CWP 61/01

¶20

//3//

¶21

The Special appeal against the decision
was also dismissed by the Supreme
Court. The Full Bench in Shankerlal Vs.
RSEB (1999(1) WLC 1) held that
qualification acquired upto 28/06/85
shall make the candidates eligible for
vacancies which have occurred upto that
date but not thereafter as per the
qualification certificate itself was
changed.”

¶22

“It is in aforesaid circumstances
when the petitioner challenged his
reversion order, learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition by
holding that view of the law declared
by this Court which was holding the
field when the petitioner was promoted.
Subsequent reversal of that view, on
different petitions in different
matters ought not to affect the
transactions which have been completed
on the belief about the correctness of
law as was declared by this Court
interpreting the relevant Rules and by
which State too was bound to act in
consonancethereof.Inthese
circumstances it will not be just and
fair to revert petitioner after so long
period.”

¶23

In view of what has been observed (supra), it is
settled that if an incumbent was promoted on the
basis of existing provisions and the law declared
by this Court at relevant point of time, which
was holding the field, subsequent reversal of

¶24

CWP 61/01

¶25

//4//

¶26

that view on different petitions, will not affect
transactions which have been completed on the
belief about correctness of law as was declared
by this Court interpreting relevant Rules.

¶27

It has been informed that against
judgment of Division Bench pronounced at
principal seat Jodhpur, SLP No.6999/03 was also
preferred by State Government that too has been
dismissed on 22/08/2003.

¶28

In such circumstances, in view of latter
decision of this Court, the controversy raised
herein does not remain res integra.

¶29

Petitioner was also promoted as LDC much
prior to judgment of Full Bench of this Court and
he is fully covered by judgment of Division Bench
quoted (supra) and accordingly his subsequent
reversal vide order impugned dt.06/12/2000 is not
legally sustainable. While notices were issued by
this Court, operation of impugned order was
stayed and order impugned has not been given
effect to.

¶30

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and
is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Order
dt.06/12/2000 with regard to reversion from the
post of LDC to the cadre of Class IV qua
petitioner is hereby quashed & set aside and he
is entitled for consequential benefits flowing
thereof. No order as to costs.

¶31

K.Khatri/p.4/61CW01prthma0804.doc

Partu Ram Raigar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partu Ram Raigar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Settlement Commissioner Ja Vs Suresh Chand Sharma and Anr.

Padam Chand Vs State Andors

Dambar Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Lakhera Vs State

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Mangi Lal Balai Vs U O R Jaipur