The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding appointment benefits, directing the petitioner to instead make a representation to the Director of Elementary Education for examination, as the matter was covered by a coordinate bench's judgment.
Petitioner directed to make a representation to the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CW2386/2012
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ram Bharosi Verma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others
Date of Order ::: 01.03.2012
Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Shri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, counsel for petitioner
By the Court :-
Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that even though the controversy raised in this case was dealt with by a coordinate bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8722/2010 – Smt. Sunita Rathore v. State and Others , decided on 22.11.2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the petitioner's appointment on the post of Prabodhak with effect from 07.01.2009, which was the date of judgment in Smt. Priti Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – S.B Civil Writ Petition No.5951/2008 . It was made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for actual benefit, but his period of service would be counted with effect from 07.01.2009 for all practical purposes, and actual benefits may be made admissible to him from the date of the judgment passed by this court on 22.11.2011 in Writ Petition
CW2386/2012
// 2 //
No.8722/2010, and for earlier period the benefits were to be calculated notionally with effect from 07.01.2009.
Having regard to the nature of controversy and that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, instead of directly entertaining the writ petition, the petitioner is required to make a representation to the respondent no.2, the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, who will examine the issue and, if the case of the petitioner is found to be covered from the case of the Smt. Sunita Rathore, supra, extend the same benefit to the petitioner. However, actual benefits would be payable to the petitioner from the date of deciding the representation within a period of two months of passing of the order by him. For earlier period, petitioner shall be entitled to notional benefits.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//62
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition seeking appointment benefits covered by a coordinate bench's decision should be entertained directly or via representation.
Ram Bharosi Verma
The State of Rajasthan
Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court