Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2018CW/5979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petitions concerning denial of notional seniority benefits to teachers. Held petitions premature as facts regarding disparity in treatment with similar cases were not raised with respondents beforehand. Petitioners given liberty to approach appointing authority with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to file representation with evidence before appointing authority regarding disparity in seniority benefits.

Kamal 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. 5979/2018

¶3

Kamal Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Dhani Kuiya, Vpo Mahawa, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

Udai Singh S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Bharala, Post Mahawa, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶5

Natthu Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vpo Dariba Via Ganeshwar, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶6

Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Luharawas, Post Deepawas, Via Ganeshwar, Tehsil Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Meena Parasar D/o Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Khedi Radan, Post Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶8

Bimla Devi Sharma D/o Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Verdha Smart Schools Near, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶9

Kishan Singh Rajput S/o Mal Singh Rajput, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jakheda, Post Saledipura, Via Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶10

Seema Sharma D/o Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Ramleela Medan, Vpo Guhala, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶11

Nirmala Sharma W/o Pawan Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Vpo Hirna Via Beswa, Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶12

Mohd. Imran S/o Aaqil Ali, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Mangloona Via Jajod, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶13

Abrar Ali S/o Shokat Ali, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Athwas, Via Balara, Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶14

Prabha Sharma W/o Subhkaran Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Dhanni Via Jajod, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-5979/2018]

¶17

Prabhudayal Indoriya S/o Radheshyam Indoriya, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Jajodiya Guest House Ke Pass, Ward No. 7, Laxmangarh, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶18

Suman Sharma D/o Makhan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Hirna Via Beswa, Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶19

Veena Dhand D/o Nand Kishor, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Kalyan Market, Ramgarh Shekhawati, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶20

Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Badi Dhani, Post Garhtaknet, Via Ajeetgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶21

Shambhu Ram Yadav S/o Sugga Ram Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhani Giruka Wali, Vpo Simaria Gagir Via Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶22

Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Mohalla Andeshery, Vpo Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶23

Smt. Kaushlya Verma W/o Rajendra Prasad Verma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Basant Vihar Colony, Vpo Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶24

Smt. Manju Sharma W/o Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mohalla Andeshery, Vpo Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶25

Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Chhigan Lal Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Pura Ki Dhani, Post Sabalpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶26

Hans Kanwar W/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Mahroli House, Ward No. 15, Shastri Nagar, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶27

Sohan Singh Shekhawat S/o Jabar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Sargoth (Sikar), Village And Post Sargoth, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶28

Mool Chand Sharma S/o Jawahar Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Sargoth (Sikar), Village And Post Sargoth, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶29

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Shobha Ramji Ki Dhani, Post Goriyan Vaya Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners

(3 of 5)

[CW-5979/2018]

Versus

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

¶35

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Elementary Education Officer (Primary), Sikar.

¶36

The Chief Executive Officer District Education Officer -Cum Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Sikar.

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

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

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶40

Order

¶41

21/03/2018

¶42

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:

¶43

“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

¶44

(4 of 5)

¶45

[CW-5979/2018]

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

(5 of 5)

¶51

[CW-5979/2018]

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

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).

¶55

Ordered accordingly.

¶56

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶57

SS/171

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal 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

Saroj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gouri Shankar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Hemraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rameshwar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs Ms Rekha Gupta

Balwant Singh Tt Shiksha Shastri Vs Nrc Ncte