Allowed

Pankaj Ghasal S/O Sh. Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2019CW/13119/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns petitioners appointed as Upper Primary Teachers whose pay fixation was delayed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, unlike Primary Teachers recruited simultaneously. The Court found prima facie hardship but refrained from adjudicating the constitutional challenge, directing instead that the State Government examine the case. The petitioner

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be allowed liberty to file fresh petition if grievance remains unresolved; Court disposed the petition with a direction for State Government to examine and grant one-time relax

Pankaj Ghasal S/O Sh. Mool Chand Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13119/2019

¶3

Pankaj Ghasal S/o Sh. Mool Chand, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Near Biradadas Ji Ki Bagichi, Duliya Bas, Sujangarh District Churu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJBI 200809013590).

¶4

Dharmendra Kumar Swarnkar S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Swarnkar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Badliyas Tehsil Kotri District Bhilwara (Raj) (Employment I.D. RJBW 200808014611).

¶5

Manoj Jain S/o Sh. Kesri Mal Jain, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Khunta Tehsil Dhariyawad District Pratapgarh (Raj) (Employment I.D. RJPG 200830043734).

¶6

Nanuram Meena S/o Sh. Kaliya Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bhumaniva, Post Pipaliya, Tehsil Dhariyawad District Pratapgarh (Raj) (Employment I.D. RJPG 200830043698).

¶7

Dhan Raj Meena S/o Sh. Kevaji Meena, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Near Icds Office, Kesarpura Road Gadriyawas, Tehsil Dhariyawad District Pratapgarh (Raj) (Employment I.D. RJPG 200830037699).

¶8

Rakesh Kumar Mahala S/o Sh. Shivkaran Singh Mahala, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Dorasar, Via Baragaon, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJJP 200818019950).

¶9

Hanuman Prasad S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Jhanjhani Post Nethwa, Tehsil Taranagar District Churu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJJP 200818006662).

¶10

Amit Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Indrapura Via Dudhawakhara, Tehsil And District Churu (Raj.) (Employment I.d. Rjbi 200809017054).

¶11

Om Singh S/o Sh. Jugal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dulchasar Via Sudsar, Tehsil Shri Dungargarh District Bikaner (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJBI 200809014894).

¶12

Bagdawat Singh S/o Sh. Balbeer Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Dhinawata Ka Bas, Ward No.6, Bidasar

¶13

(2 of 5)

¶14

[CW-13119/2019]

¶15

District Churu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJBI 200809017116).

¶16

Prithvi Singh S/o Sh. Madan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Malasar Post Amarsar Via Sandwa, Tehsil Bidasar District Churu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJBI 200809013672).

¶17

Mana Ram Roj S/o Sh. Geedha Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Goria Teeba Post Kishanpura Via Badhal District Jaipur (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJJP 200818032478).

¶18

Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash Kaler, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Sotwara Via Doomra District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Employment I.D. RJJP 200818048273).

¶19

----Petitioners

¶20

Versus

¶21

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

¶22

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶23

The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.

¶24

The Chief District Education Officer (Secondary), Bikaner.

¶25

The Chief District Education Officer (Secondary), Bhilwara.

¶26

The Chief District Education Officer (Secondary), Pratapgarh

¶27

The Chief District Education Officer (Secondary), Jaipur. 8. The Chief District Education Officer (Secondary), Churu.

¶28

The Chief District Education Officer (Primary), Bikaner.

¶29

The Chief District Education Officer (Primary), Bhilwara.

¶30

The Chief District Education Officer (Primary), Pratapgarh.

¶31

The Chief District Education Officer (Primary), Jaipur.

¶32

The Chief District Education Officer (Primary), Churu.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Petitioner(s)

¶35

: Mr. Sunil Kumar Swami

¶36

(3 of 5)

¶37

[CW-13119/2019]

¶38

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

¶39

Judgment

¶40

21/08/2019

¶41

Petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for declaring Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2008’), ultra vires being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it does not grant fixation to them as granted to similarly situated candidates recruited as Teacher Grade-III in the same recruitment process. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondents to give same benefit to the petitioners as was given to the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1949/2011 titled Anita Sharma and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided vide order dated 20.03.2015.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of this court dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4253/2019 – Ramesh Chand Saini and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and therefore it may be decided in the light thereof. Learned counsel submits that he also does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, however, prays that the State Government be directed to consider their case for grant of one time relaxation.

¶43

It is contended that selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teacher was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in written examination pursuant to common selection process. Common merit list was prepared,

¶44

(4 of 5)

¶45

[CW-13119/2019]

¶46

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 different dates. The petitioners have filed their appointment order dated 12.01.2008 on record as Annexure-2. In between, the State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated the Rules of 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 present petitioners, since their appointments were delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increments would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 01.07.2011. 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.

¶47

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 pursuant to same advertisement by granting them one increment, may be notionally, with effect from

¶48

(5 of 5)

¶49

[CW-13119/2019]

¶50

01.07.2010 considering that they were actually in service on that date and even prior thereto.

¶51

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 grievance of the petitioners is 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.

¶52

With aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶53

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶54

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶55

//Jaiman//45 (list of court no.1)

Pankaj Ghasal S/O Sh. Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Ghasal S/O Sh. Mool Chand 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

Raj Kumar Nayak S/O Puran Mal Nayak Vs Shri Rishab Dev Ola, Executive Officer

Dhananjay Singh S/O Shri Kashinath B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj Khadi and Village Indu Vs Smt Urmila Jain Andors

Boduram Kumawat S/O Patasa Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jugal Singh Son of Late Shri Angad Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Best Cargo Movers Vs State of Raj and Ors.