Disposed

Dipti Modi v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2018CW/9860/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding pay protection for a government servant appointed as a probationer trainee. Court disposed application relying on a coordinate bench judgment and subsequent state notification, directing state to ensure compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed relying on Praveen Kumar Yadav judgment and state notification; state directed to ensure compliance within four weeks.

Dipti Modi 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 Writs No. 9860/2018

¶3

Dipti Modi D/o Late Suresh Chandra Modi, W/o Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 112/209, Sector 11, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary-CumCommissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur

¶8

The District Elementary Education Officer, Dholpur

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur

¶10

The District Elementary Education Officer Jaipur

¶11

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Saipau, District Dholpur

¶12

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chaksu, District Jaipur

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Saipau, Distt. Dholpur

¶14

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chaksu, District Jaipur

¶15

The Paden Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Pureni, District Dholpur, Rajasthan

¶16

The Paden Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Chandel Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Chaksu, District Jaipur

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Order

08/05/2018

(2 of 3)

[CW-9860/2018]

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:

¶25

“Adverting to the issue of protection of the petitioners, 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;

¶26

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

¶27

“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.

¶28

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.”

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-9860/2018]

¶31

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.

¶32

Therefore, the pay of the petitioner is to be protected as he was already a government servant when he was appointed as Teacher Grade-III at Ajmer District vide order dated 23.03.2005.

¶33

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.”

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

Needless to observe that the State-respondents would ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit permitting the petitioner to join at his 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.

¶37

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶38

SS/156

Dipti Modi v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipti Modi 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

Vimla Choudhary Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Ashish Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jogender Singh Vs State Education Department Ors.

Dharmveer Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Yad Ram Khati Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Satya Narain Sharma