Dismissed

Priyanka Kumari v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2018CW/4648/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a writ petition regarding pay protection for a government servant re-appointed as a probationer trainee, relying on a prior bench decision and a subsequent state amendment to service rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of, and the State-respondents are directed to ensure compliance by permitting the petitioner to join their place of posting expeditiously.

Priyanka Kumari 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 Writ Petition No. 4648 / 2018

Priyanka Kumari

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶10

05/03/2018

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 9500 of 2007, decided on 24^th August, 2016, observing thus:

¶12

“Adverting to the issue of protection of the petitioners,

¶13

it is apposite to reproduce Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) which came into effect from 20.01.2006, hereunder;

¶14

“24. Pay not to exceed pay of the post- A person appointed in Government service to a post on a time scale of pay shall draw as initial pay the minimum of the scale or at such stage as may be prescribed or approved sanctioned by the competent authority for the post held by

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-4648/2018]

¶17

him. No special or personal pay shall be granted to a Government servant without the sanction of Government.

¶18

“Provided further that a probationertrainee will receive a fixed remuneration at such rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time and on completion of period of probation, minimum pay of the pay scale of the post shall be allowed under this rule, from the day following the day of successful completion of the period of probation.

¶19

Provided further also that a government servant, who is already in regular service of the State Government, if appointed as probationer-trainee for a period of two years on or after 20.1.2006 shall be allowed pay in his/her own pay scale of the previous post of fixed remuneration at such rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time, whichever may be beneficial to him/her and after successful completion of period of probationer-trainee, his/her pay shall be fixed in pay scale of the new post as per provisions of Rule 26.”

¶20

It is manifest from reading of the second proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules that the pay of the government servant who was already in regular service of the State and has been appointed as probationer trainee for a period of two years on or after 20.1.2006 shall be protected.

¶21

Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is to be protected as he was already a government servant

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-4648/2018]

¶24

when he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III at Ajmer District vide order dated 23.03.2005.

¶25

Indisputably, there is no break in the service of the petitioner and he was working at Ajmer before joining at subsequent place of posting at Alwar in terms of the later advertisement.”

¶26

Learned counsel further urged that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), for subsequent to adjudication, a notification has also been issued by the State-respondents in consonance with the adjudication in the case aforesaid on 30^th October, 2017, carrying out an amendment in Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

¶27

In view of the above; instant writ application stands disposed off in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), as extracted herein above.

¶28

Needless to observe that the State-respondents would ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit permitting the petitioners to join at their respective place of posting, if already not joined, as expeditiously as possible; preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶29

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶30

SS/146

Priyanka Kumari v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kumari v. State of Raj 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

Samay Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Arun Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Harish Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Babu Lal Meena Vs State Agriculture Depanr

Hemant Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.