Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Parbat Singh

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2018SAW/1703/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed challenging promotion denial due to third child birth. Court upheld deferment rules requiring 5-year bar, upholding Single Judge's ratio on ACP deference.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Appeal dismissed finding no merit.

What the court decided

State of Rajasthan Vs Parbat Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1703/2018

¶3

State of Rajasthan through Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶4

The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.

¶5

The District Education Officer, Primary Education, Sirohi. 4. The Principal, Aadarsh Government Senior Secondary School, Kalandari, District- Sirohi.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Parbat Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Resident of Ghorathala Ke pass, Kalandri, Tehsil and District Sirohi (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr.B.L.Bhati, G.C. For Respondent(s) : ---------

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

14/11/2018

¶14

Civil Misc. Application No.668/2018:-

¶15

Though no sufficient cause has been shown entitling appellant to 175 days delay in filing the appeal to be condoned, since we prefer to hear the appeal on merits we condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

The application is allowed.

¶17

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1703/2018:-

¶18

Appellants challenge an order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-1703/2018]

¶21

The facts and the dates noted by the learned Single Judge are not in dispute, that writ petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III on 26.12.1992. He was thereafter selected and appointed as a Senior Teacher on 17.07.1997. A third child was born to him on 27.09.2004. As per the notification dated 20.06.2001, if government servant in the State of Rajasthan was blessed with a third child after the date of notification, promotion was liable to be deferred for a period of five years. Benefit of the first ACP was deferred recording that the respondent had a fathered a third child on 27.09.2004. The benefit which had to be granted under the ACP in the year 2006 was actually granted in the year 2011.

¶22

D.P.C. met to consider eligible applicants for promotion of Senior Teachers to the post of School Lecturer. The respondent was considered and was promoted as a School Lecturer vide order dated 30.05.2015. He was however not relieved on account of the fact he had fathered a third child on 27.09.2004 after the notification dated 20.06.2001 was promulgated.

¶23

Paragraph 3 of the notification dated 20.06.2001 reads as under:-

¶24

“3. Amendment :- After the existing sub-rule (1) of rule as mentioned in Column No.4 against each of the Service rules as mentioned in Column No.2 of the Schedule appended hereto, the following new sub-rule shall be added, namely:-

¶25

“(1A) No person shall be considered for promotion for 5 recruitment years from the dated on

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[SAW-1703/2018]

¶28

which his promotion becomes due, if he/she has more than two children on or before after 1^st June, 2002.”

¶29

A perusal of the notification would show that a person loses right to be considered for promotion if he/she has more than two children on or before after 1^st June, 2002. Consideration for promotion is prohibited for five years.

¶30

The learned Single Judge has noted that the circular does not speak about the deferment of ACP benefit but applying analogous principles even ACP benefits could be deferred. The learned Single Judge has noted that ACP benefit is granted on account of stagnation and promotion not being earned i.e. financial implication being the same whether ACP benefit is deferred by five years or promotion is deferred by five years. The learned Single Judge has held that once ACP benefits was deferred by five years the writ petitioner could not be penalized once again. We agree.

¶31

We supplement the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The third child of the respondent was born on 27.09.2004. He thus became liable not to be considered for promotion for a period of five years. The vacancies which were considered were ultimately filled up in the year 2015. By the time five years deferment period had lapsed.

¶32

We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

¶33

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶34

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶35

Kshama Dixit/6

State of Rajasthan v. Parbat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

State of Rajasthan v. Parbat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prahlad Dadhich Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Swarankar Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan through the Home Secretary, Vs Jai Narain

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahesh

State of Rajasthan Vs Nemi Chand