Disposed

Mishri Lal Saini v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2018CW/16561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SBCWP No. 16561/2018, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of writ petitions filed by school teachers seeking retrospective notional seniority benefits. The court held the petitions were premature as facts were not brought to respondent notice internally and directed filing of representations before the appointing authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed with direction to file representations before the appointing authority regarding lack of notional seniority benefits.

Mishri Lal Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16561/2018

¶3

Mishri Lal Saini S/o Jagdish Prasad Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Presently Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Kishangarhbas, Alwar.

¶4

Hans Raj Dayma S/o Shri Badlu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Presently Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Odara, Kishangarhbas, Alwar.

¶5

Shyam Sundar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Sukhaniyo Ki Dhani, Jaloda, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶6

Prem Sukh S/o Ghisa Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Maliyo Ki Dhani, Jatabas, Lohawat, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Sher Singh S/o Lal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Chouhano Ki Dhani, Indo Ka Bas, Phalodi, Jodhpur.

¶8

Gopal Krishna Sharma S/o L.m. Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Runkiya, Bilara.

¶9

Babu Lal Samariya S/o Mothu Ram Samariya, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Nagodi, Nimrana, Alwar.

¶10

Mita Jaiman D/o Prem Chand Jaima, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Arya Nagar, Alwar.

¶11

Hemlata Sharma W/o Deepak Kaushik, Aged About 40 Years, Working As Prabodhak At Government Primary School, Amra Ka Bas, Thangazi, Alwar.

¶12

Giri Raj Prasad S/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Dhadhikar, Umrain, Alwar.

¶13

Pramod Kumar S/o Harkaran Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Working As Prabodhak At Government Upper Primary School, Bijwara Chouhan, Mundwar, District Alwar.

¶14

Dhara Singh S/o Roshan Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Government Upper Primary School, Malota, Bahror, Alwar.

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 4)

[CW-16561/2018]

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶20

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar.

¶21

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : – – - -

¶24

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶25

Order

¶26

02/11/2018

¶27

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 No. 5405/2012, decided on 12^th May, 2014), observing thus :

¶28

“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

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CW-16561/2018]

¶31

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. 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CW-16561/2018]

¶36

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

¶37

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).

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶40

Himanshu/-273

Mishri Lal Saini v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mishri Lal Saini v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Shaukat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Anish Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Khushala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balwant Ram Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Shri Adarsh High School Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Shankar Lal Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan