Dismissed

State of Raj and Ors. v. Dr Arun Kumar Tyagi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2014SAW/1579/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Special Appeals filed by the State. It held that services in aided/institutions are relevant for Career Advancement Schemes per Apex Court ruling. The State is directed to process cases within three months or face disobedience proceedings.

What did the court decide?

State directed to consider each case for CAS within three months; time extended for delay condoned; ministry warned of disobedience proceedings.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Dr Arun Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SAW - 1 4 7 7 / 1 4

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

I n The Hi gh Cour t of Judi cat ur e f or Raj ast han Jai pur Bench, Jai pur O R D E R

¶4

D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1477/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1507/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1579/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1619/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1631/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1740/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1758/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1759/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1760/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 2002/ 2014 D. B. Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 2021/ 2014

¶5

Dat e : 16/ 12/ 2014

¶6

Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Aj ay Rast ogi Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce J. K. Ranka

¶7

Mr . Dhar amveer Thol i a AAG wi t h ] Mr . Sumi t Tet er wal Adv. ] Mr . Var un Choudhar y Adv. ] Mr . Raj an Pr aj apat i Adv. ] Mr . I nder j eet Si ngh AAG ] f or appel l ant Dr . Sohan Lal Shar ma Adv. ] Mr . Lokendr a Si ngh Shekhawat Adv. ] f or r espondent s. Apar t f r om of f i ce obj ect i ons, as per of f i ce r epor t , t her e i s del ay i n f i l i ng of pr esent appeal s f or whi ch separ at e appl i cat i on has been f i l ed i n r espect i ve appeal s seeki ng condonat i on of del ay u/ S 5 of Li mi t at i on Act .

¶8

Taki ng not e of t he j ust i f i cat i on of f er ed and af t er hear i ng counsel f or t he par t i es, we consi der i t appr opr i at e t o condone t he del ay.

¶9

Accor di ngl y, t he appl i cat i on seeki ng condonat i on of del ay u/ S 5 of Li mi t at i on Act st ands al l owed and t he del ay i n f i l i ng of r espect i ve appeal i s her eby condoned.

¶10

Hear d counsel f or t he par t i es.

¶11

I nst ant i nt r a- cour t appeal s have been f i l ed agai nst or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge.

¶12

The quest i on whi ch ar ose f or consi der at i on

¶13

SAW - 1 4 7 7 / 1 4

¶14

( 2 )

¶15

bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge was as t o whet her t he ser vi ce whi ch t he r espondent t eacher has r ender ed i n an ai ded/ non- ai ded i nst i t ut i on shal l be count ed f or t he pur pose of gr ant of car eer advancement ( CAS) and pl aci ng r el i ance on t he ear l i er j udgment of t hi s Cour t i n St at e of Raj ast han & Anr . Vs. Smt . Sangeet Si ngh & Or s : D. B. Ci vi l Speci al Appeal ( W) 786/ 2004, deci ded t he wr i t pet i t i on wi t h di r ect i on t o t he Commi ssi oner , Col l ege Educat i on t o consi der r epr esent at i on of i ndi vi dual f or gr ant of car eer advancement i n l i ght of t he j udgment of t he Cour t r ef er r ed t o.

¶16

On t he l ast dat e of hear i ng, t hi s Cour t put a quest i on t o t he counsel appear i ng f or t he St at e t hat when t he i ssue has been f i nal l y deci ded by t he Apex Cour t and r emai ns no mor e r es- i nt egr a t o be exami ned by t hi s Cour t any f ur t her t hen why t hese appeal s have been pr ef er r ed.

¶17

To j ust i f y t hei r act i on i n t aki ng deci si on of f i l i ng speci al appeal s, t he l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , Sh. Dhar amveer Thol i a and Sh. I nder j eet Si ngh, of f i cer s of t he cour t , j oi nt l y submi t s t hat t he subj ect i ssue has been f i nal l y consi der ed & put t o r est by t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n St at e of Raj ast an & Anr . Vs. Mi l ap Chand Jai n & Anr . , 2013( 14) SCC 562 and f ur t her submi t s t hat anot her cont r over sy r eached t o t he Supr eme Cour t as t o whet her t he adhoc ser vi ce r ender ed by an empl oyee coul d be consi der ed f or ent i t l ement t o pensi onar y benef i t s, t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n Uni ver si t y of Raj . & Anr . Vs. Pr em Lat a Agar wal , 2013( 3) SCC 705

¶18

SAW - 1 4 7 7 / 1 4

¶19

( 3 )

¶20

obser ved t hat t he adhoc ser vi ces r ender ed shal l not be count ed f or t he pur pose of pensi on and keepi ng i n vi ew t he deci si on of t he Apex Cour t expr essed i n r espect of t he nat ur e of ser vi ce r ender ed f or t he pur pose of gr ant of pensi onar y benef i t s, i t has been advi sed t o t he St at e Gover nment f or f i l i ng speci al appeal s.

¶21

Apar t f r om t he del ay whi ch we have condoned, r ef er r ed t o supr a, we have al so t aken not e of t he j oi nt submi ssi ons made by t he l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat es Gener al appear i ng f or t he St at e and we f i nd t hat t he deci si on t aken i n f i l i ng of t he i nst ant speci al appeal s i s compl et el y i l l - f ounded and as r egar ds t he quest i on wi t h r espect t o car eer advancement scheme i s concer ned, af t er j udgment of t he Apex Cour t , r ef er r ed t o supr a, t he quest i on has been put t o r est & i s no mor e r es- i nt egr a t o be exami ned by t hi s Cour t any f ur t her and as r egar ds t he submi ssi on made of f i l i ng speci al appeal s i n t he l i ght of j udgment of t he Apex Cour t i n Pr em Lat a Agar wal , 2013( 3) SCC 705 i s i l l - f ounded and we f i nd t hat t he cont r over sy whi ch has been exami ned by t he Apex Cour t r egar di ng ent i t l ement of car eer advancement t o a t eacher who has r ender ed ser vi ce i n an ai ded/ non- ai ded i nst i t ut i on i s bei ng gover ned by separ at e set of Rul es and t he j ust i f i cat i on t ender ed by t he appel l ant - St at e i n t aki ng deci si on of f i l i ng bunch of speci al appeal s appear s t o be f or t hei r own sat i sf act i on.

¶22

Si nce t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge under or der i mpugned di r ect ed each of t he wr i t pet i t i oner t o

¶23

SAW - 1 4 7 7 / 1 4

¶24

( 4 )

¶25

submi t r epr esent at i on i n l i ght of t he j udgment of t he Apex Cour t r ef er r ed t o supr a and l ef t i t open f or t he St at e t o pass appr opr i at e or der s, under t hese f act s & ci r cumst ances we gr ant ed t i me t o t he Counsel appear i ng f or t he St at e t o exami ne each case of t he r espondent t eacher and i nf or m r egar di ng t hei r el i gi bi l i t y f or gr ant of CAS but not hi ng has been br ought t o our not i ce and t hat bei ng so we consi der i t appr opr i at e t o di r ect t he appel l ant - St at e t o consi der each case of t he r espondent - t eacher f or gr ant of CAS t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t he per i od of ser vi ce r ender ed by each of t hem i n t he l i ght of j udgment of t he Apex Cour t r ef er r ed t o supr a and pass appr opr i at e or der s wi t hi n t he t i me schedul e st i pul at ed.

¶26

The Addi t i onal Advocat es Gener al j oi nt l y submi t s t hat at l east t wo mont hs t i me may be gr ant ed t o make compl i ance of t he or der of t he Cour t as obser ved.

¶27

The speci al appeal s pr ef er r ed by t he St at e i n t he l i ght of t he j udgment of t he Apex Cour t r ef er r ed t o supr a ar e not sust ai nabl e and deser ves t o be di smi ssed and we gr ant t hr ee mont hs' t i me t o t he appel l ant - St at e t o consi der each case of t he r espondent t eacher f or gr ant of CAS i n t he l i ght of j udgment of t he Apex Cour t r ef er r ed t o supr a and pass appr opr i at e or der s wi t hi n a per i od of t hr ee mont hs.

¶28

We f ur t her make i t cl ear t hat i f t he appel l ant - St at e f ai l s t o compl y wi t h t he or der wi t hi n t hr ee mont hs t he r espondent t eacher wi l l be at l i ber t y t o f i l e appl i cat i on i n t hi s ver y mat t er f or al l eged

¶29

SAW - 1 4 7 7 / 1 4

¶30

( 5 )

¶31

di sobedi ence i f any bei ng commi t t ed by t he of f i cer s of t he Gover nment .

¶32

I n t he l i ght of what has been i ndi cat ed above, t he pr esent bunch of appeal s st ands di smi ssed wi t h t he obser vat i ons made supr a. For necessar y compl i ance copy of t hi s or der be pl aced i n each of t he r espect i ve f i l es.

¶33

( J. K. Ranka) , J. ( Aj ay Rast ogi ) , J.

¶34

VS/ Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed/ Vijay Singh Shekhawat/ PAJW

State of Raj and Ors. v. Dr Arun Kumar Tyagi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj and Ors. v. Dr Arun Kumar Tyagi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Amco India Ltd. Bhiwadi

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S J S P Security

Ram Sharan Mathur and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Smt Rekha Devi Sharma

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Govind Gupta and Anr.

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Rishi Kumar Sharma