Disposed

Kanchan Lal v. Secretary to the Govt and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2017CW/14596/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation regarding his regularization and seniority benefits. The State respondents are mandated to decide the representation via a reasoned order within four weeks, adhering to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and a Larger Bench of this Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed by directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation for consideration by the State respondents within four weeks.

Kanchan Lal Vs Secretary to the Govt and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14596 / 2017

¶3

Kanchan Lal S/o Shri Parbhati B/c Prajapat, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Khoh Tehsil Deeg District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) At Present Working on the Post of IVth Class Employee in the Government Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Khoh District Bharatpur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Secretary to the Government, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶8

District Education Officer, Secondary-I, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Vyas

¶11

For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

13/09/2017

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the Staterespondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in the backdrop of the adjudication by a Larger Bench of this Court made a reference in the case of Atar Singh Vs.

¶16

Secretary, Secondary Education & Ors., decided on 5^th July, 2017; observing thus:

¶17

"36. In our considered opinion, where the rules which are pari-materia for the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has held that the ad-hoc period cannot be allowed to be considered for the benefits of 9, 18 & 27 years.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-14596/2017]

¶20

Therefore, para 16 of the judgment of Supreme court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors. (supra) , as reproduced above is binding for this Court and is required to be accepted. Accordingly, the questions referred to us are answered thus:

¶21

37. QUESTION A

¶22

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi and Surendra Mahnot & Ors. (supra); we are of the opinion that the respondent – employee would stand regularized from the date of regularization in service and not prior to that.

¶23

38. QUESTION B

¶24

Taking into consideration the recent decision, prior to two decades the regularization period was not questioned by anybody, therefore, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner it will not be appropriate for us to allow the Government to end the regularization. However, regularization will be from the date of regularization done by the department and not prior thereto.

¶25

39. QUESTION C

¶26

The contention of the counsel for the employees is required to be accepted and it cannot be annulled unless it has been annulled by appropriate authority. However, the benefits shall not be withdrawn but in future when the benefits are to be accorded for further promotion, the same will be considered on the basis of new law declared by the Supreme Court i.e. period will be considered from the date of regularization. When the future benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27 will be considered their ad-hoc service will not be considered for the purpose of benefit of 9, 18 and/or 27 years. But if benefit has already been granted for all the three scales; the same shall not be withdrawn and no recovery will be made from the employees.

¶27

40. QUESTION D

¶28

In view of our answer in above matters, it is very clear that for the purpose of regularisation the date of regularisation will be from the date of regular appointment.

¶29

In that view of the matter, there cannot be two dates for the purpose of seniority and the other benefits. However, earlier services will be considered for the purpose of the same if there is a shortage in pensionary benefits.

41. QUESTION E

(3 of 3)

[CW-14596/2017]

In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court, as referred to above, the ad-hocism will not be considered for seniority. In that view of the matter, there will be only one date for regularization, date of regularizing ad-hoc period will not have any effect on seniority. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gopa Ram in DB Civil Special Appeal No.44/2016 , decided on 18.04.2016 had no right to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Narayan Chaturvedi (Supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors. (supra) . Thus, the decision of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gopa Ram (supra) did not lay down correct law. The correct law would be the law declared by the Supreme Court in the two judgments referred hereinabove.

¶34

In view of above discussion, we answer the questions accordingly. The matter may be placed before the Division Bench on 07.07.2017."

¶35

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 grievance.

¶36

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 four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶37

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶38

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶39

SS/65

Kanchan Lal v. Secretary to the Govt and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Lal v. Secretary to the Govt 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

Shashi Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

J v v N L L Td and Anr. Vs Upper District and Session Jud

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Bunkar and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Company and Ors.

Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bijoy Kumar Dutta and Anr. Vs State Finance Department Ors.