Disposed

Anuradha Tiwari v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 May 2018CW/10977/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition regarding non-consideration of notional seniority for similarly situated appointees was disposed of upon petitioner representation that a coordinate bench had already resolved the controversy in a batch of similar applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file appropriate representation with evidence before the appointing authority.

Anuradha Tiwari Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10977/2018

¶3

Anuradha Tiwari D/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- C/o- N.l. Arashar, Collectrate, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Secretary To The Government And Commissioner, Rural Development Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director Elementary Education, Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

21/05/2018

¶16

Representative of the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP Number 1798/2012: Govind Das Vaishnav & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 26^th may, 2014, relying upon the earlier opinion in the case of Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. along

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-10977/2018]

¶19

with connected six writ applications (SBCWP Number 5405/2012, decided on 12^th May, 2014), observing thus:

¶20

“After the legal battle, the petitioners were given appointment as 'Prabodhak' under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008. Though the petitioners were originally appointed as Prabodhak vide the order (Annex.2) dated 29.09.2008 by the order of the District Education Officer, however, they were not given joining on the said post, and after approaching this Court under the directions of this Court, in case of the present petitioners who were appointed vide the order (Annex.4) dated 24.02.2009, however, were not given the notional benefit of seniority etc. from the date of original appointment on 29.09.2008, hence, the present writ petition was filed.

¶21

Mr. N.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for other similarly situated persons vide Annex.5 dated 19.10.2011, the District Education Officer, Bhilwara, had given appointment to certain persons like Asha Joshi and Aruna Pareek etc. (16 in number) giving them the notional benefit of seniority from the date of 01.10.2008 as Prabodhak even though they were actually appointed under the order (Annex.5) dated 19.10.2011 in pursuance of the directions of this Court. Since the petitioners have been given different treatment and no such similar notional benefit with effect from retrospective date has been given to the petitioners, hence, the present writ petitions have been filed by them. The other petitioners before this Court also claim similar relief/s.

¶22

The petitioners have not first brought these facts to the notice of the respondents before approaching this Court, therefore, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are considered as premature.

¶23

Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-10977/2018]

¶26

of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority, who has issued the orders of appointment to the petitioners claiming the same relief, as purportedly given to other similar situated persons. It is expected of the said respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to them though others persons have been given such benefits. If, however, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law.

¶27

The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.”

¶28

It is further urged that the instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Govind Das Vaishnav & Ors. (supra).

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶31

SS/258

Anuradha Tiwari v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Tiwari v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manna Ram Jat and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jagram Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vijendra Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Rajput Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kapil Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.