Disposed

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Lalaram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2019CW/11299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State Government to examine the petitioners' case for one-time relaxation under Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008, to equalize their pay increments with similarly situated Primary Teachers appointed after a selection process.

What did the court decide?

Directed State Government to examine petitioners' case for one-time relaxation and grant increment from 01.07.2010 within four months.

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Lalaram Yadav Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11299/2019

¶3

Anil Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Lalaram Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village-Gugriya, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶4

Dayavati Yadav D/o Shri Deshraj Yadav W/o Sarmendra Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Infront Of Vikram Talkis, Moh-Nainsukh, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

Heera Lal Jat S/o Shri Ramchandra Jat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village -Naradpura, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Sukhi Ram S/o Badalu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Sunderwari, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Ashok Kumar S/o Ganpat Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Nangliya, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶8

Ajay Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village- Shimla, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

Manindra S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Shimla, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶10

Sunita Bhatia W/o Arunendra Bhatia D/o Shri Harbans Lal Bhatia, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Mohala Badhari Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶11

Gaytri W/o Vijaypal D/o Shri Brijanand, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ananad Farm House Narehra Kalna, Tehsil Behror, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Rohitash W/o Deepak Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Nai Khoti, Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-11299/2019]

¶19

Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶20

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶21

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶22

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Jhunjhunu (Raj).

¶23

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District Jhunjhunu (Raj)

¶24

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Jhunjhunu Raj).

¶25

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Alwar (Raj)

¶26

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District Alwar (Raj)

¶27

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Alwar Raj)

¶28

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶29

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶30

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Jaipur Raj) ----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) :

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶33

Order

¶34

02/08/2019

¶35

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia with the prayer that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008') be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents be directed to grant benefit of relaxation, as enumerated under Rule

¶36

(3 of 4)

¶37

[CW-11299/2019]

¶38

3 of the Rules of 2008 to the petitioners and they be granted annual grade increment from the date, on which similarly situated persons have been granted, i.e., from 01.07.2010.

¶39

During the course of arguments, Mr. Sudhir Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 on peculiar facts of this case, provided the State Government is directed to consider petitioners’ case for grant of one time relaxation to them.

¶40

Selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in the common written examination and participated in process of selection. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the Primary Teachers were made on 24.09.2007, but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 01.01.2008. In between, State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Primary Teachers received increment on 01.07.2010 since they completed one year probation period after their appointment before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of petitioners, since their appointment was delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increment would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 01.07.2011.

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

[CW-11299/2019]

¶43

Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, where the Governor retains the power to relax the rule in the case of undue hardship in any particular case. Prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a case of hardship, but since the State Government has not examined this matter, we refrain from expressing any further opinion, except requiring the State Government to have the case of the petitioners examined for grant of one time relaxation, so as to consider their case and bring them at par with the Primary Teachers appointed in the same process of selection held in pursuance of same advertisement by granting them one increment, may be notionally, with effect from 01.07.2010 considering that they were actually in service on that date and even prior thereto.

¶44

We, therefore, direct the State Government to undertake necessary exercise and pass appropriate order with regard thereto within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. It goes without saying that in case grievances of the petitioners are not remedied, the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition with the same prayer as made in the present writ petition and also incorporating challenge to the order that may be passed by the State Government.

¶45

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶47

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶48

Jatin /RS/52

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Lalaram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Lalaram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Ors. Vs Shri D B Gupta and Ors.

M/S Rathi Tmt Saria Pvt. Ltd, Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

Mohsin Khan S/O Usman Khan Vs Cce and St- Jaipur

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Vs M/S Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax , Vs M/S Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Gaurav Dhaka Son of Shri Vidhyadhar Singh Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Avvnl)