Disposed

Laxman Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2018CW/5243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation to the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, for consideration regarding their claim for seniority and service benefits similar to those granted to lower merit candidates in a related case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a representation to be considered by respondent No.2 within two months for granting seniority and service benefits.

Laxman Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5243/2018

¶3

Laxman Singh S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Mogas, Post Jalsu Nanak, Via Ren, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Norang Lal S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo 19 K Jd, Ward No. 9, Siyasar Chougan, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶5

Gogaram S/o Kaisha Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Mogas, Post Jalsunamak Via Ren, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Rama Ram S/o Taja Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Mahadevpura, Post Kamthei, Via Sindhari, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

The Deputy Director (Secondary), Udaipur Division, Udaipur.

¶12

The District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Nagaur.

¶13

The District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶17

12/03/2018

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in somewhat identical controversy, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the earlier opinions, in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors.

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-5243/2018]

¶21

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 7283 of 2014, allowed opportunity to the petitioners therein, to make a representation to the respondent No.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, observing thus:

¶22

“This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.

¶23

It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.

¶24

The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

¶25

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CW-5243/2018]

¶28

petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to make a representation to respondent no.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, along-with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners for extending them the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent no.2 decides to place the petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits.”

¶29

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in the backdrop of the adjudication made in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶30

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra).

¶31

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order addressing grievances of the

¶32

(4 of 4) [CW-5243/2018]

¶33

petitioners for extending the same relief as accorded in favour of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors.

¶34

The exercise aforesaid shall be undertaking by the respondent No.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶35

In case, the claim of the petitioners is found covered by the adjudication as referred to and relied upon in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra); the petitioners too be extended the same benefit.

¶36

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

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶38

SS/211

Laxman Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Singh and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal Meena Vs State Agriculture Depanr

Priyanka Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Harish Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemant Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bharti Sharma Vs State Education Department Ors.

Sahab Singh Vs State Education Department Ors.