Disposed

Amit Kumar Patidar S/O Shri Ramgopal Patidar v. the State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2018CW/13748/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, appointed Prabodhaks, sought notional benefit of seniority denied to them but granted to others. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as premature, directing petitioners to approach the appointing authority with evidence before initiating legal action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation with appointing authority with evidence; liberty to approach Court if adverse order is passed.

Amit Kumar Patidar S/O Shri Ramgopal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 13748/2018

¶3

Amit Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Ramgopal Patidar, aged about 43 years, R/o Village & Post Bonli, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur working on the post of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Dhani Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶4

Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Hazari Lal Meena , Aged About 45 Years, R/o Hanumantpura, Post Dhatuli, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur Working On The Post Of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Chenpura, Tehsil Niwai, Distriict Tonk.

¶5

Kanhaiya Lal Meena S/o Shri Onkar Mal Meena , Aged About 46 Years, R/o Jaisinghpura, Panchayat Daulatpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa Working On The Post Of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Buritiya, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk.

¶6

Devi Prasad Meena S/o Shri Battu Lal , Aged About 41 Years, R/o Jins Ki Pura, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli Working On The Post Of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Ram Damodarpura, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk.

¶7

Pradeep Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma , Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Near Kota University, District Kota Working On The Post Of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Burada, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk.

¶8

Syed Sabir Ali S/o Shri Shakir Ali , Aged About 42 Years, Working On The Post Of Prabodhak, Government Upper Primary School Dhani Khirni, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

The Director Elementary Education , Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, District Tonk.

¶14

District Elementary Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Tonk.

¶15

Chief Executive Officer, District Sawai Madhopur

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-13748/2018]

¶18

District Elementary Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶19

---Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶22

Order

¶23

10/07/2018

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 with connected six writ applications (SBCWP Noumer 5405/2012, decided on 12^th May, 2014), observing thus:

¶25

“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

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CW-13748/2018]

¶28

seniority etc. from the date of original appointment on 29.09.2008, hence, the present writ petition was filed.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed 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.

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-13748/2018]

¶34

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

¶35

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).

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J