Allowed

Dashrath Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2019CW/14449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petitions challenging the forfeiture of past service upon resignation of teachers who sought transfers to home districts. Held that resignation with proper permission for government appointment does not forfeit past service under Rule 25, and petitioners entitled to counting of continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; petitioners entitled to counting of past service as per Rule 25 of Rules of 1996 and Circular dated 9.8.2018.

Dashrath Kumar Saini Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10767/2019

¶3

Dhara Singh Bairwa S/o Sharwan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, Village Post Kudly, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur.

¶9

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sayla, Distt. Jalore.

¶10

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu, Distt. Jaipur.

¶11

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Sayla, Distt. Jalore.

¶12

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dudu, Distt. Jaipur.

¶13

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gangala, Gsss Taliyana, Block Sayla, District Jalore.

¶14

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gsss Raseeli, Block Dudu, District Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5852/2019

¶18

Rajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Jai Singh Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Post Patoli, Tehsil Mahwa, Dist. Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

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

¶22

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.

¶23

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa.

¶24

(2 of 8)

¶25

[CW-10767/2019]

¶26

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶27

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahwa Distt. Dausa.

¶28

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶29

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahwa, Distt. Dausa.

¶30

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gsss, Ketukallan, (P.s. Anne Ki Dhani, Ketukallan) Distt. Jodhpur.

¶31

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gsss, Vishala, P.s. Bairwabas, Block Mahwa, Distt. Dausa.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14448/2019

¶34

Murari Lal Saini S/o Fool Chand Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Post Office, Geejgarh Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

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

¶38

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.

¶39

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa.

¶40

The Block Development, Panchayat Samiti, Sheo, District Barmer.

¶41

The Block Development, Panchayat Samiti, Gadra Road, District Barmer.

¶42

The Block Development, Panchayat Samiti, Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶43

The District Education Officer, Barmer.

¶44

The District Education Officer, Dausa.

¶45

The Block Education Officer (Beeo), Panchayat Samiti Sheo, Distt. Barmer.

¶46

The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Gadra Road, District Barmer.

¶47

The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶48

(3 of 8)

¶49

[CW-10767/2019]

¶50

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Khabdala, District Barmer.

¶51

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Geejgarh, District Dausa.

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14449/2019

¶54

Dashrath Kumar Saini S/o Gokul Ram Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Mor, Via Malpura, Tehsil Todarsingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

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

¶58

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.

¶59

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk.

¶60

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶61

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk.

¶62

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Tinwari, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶63

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk.

¶64

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Adarsh Senior Secondary School Panchala Khurd, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶65

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Rindliya (Rampura), Distt. Tonk.

¶66

----Respondents

¶67

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15943/2019

¶68

Diggo S/o Gyan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Bhadira, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶69

----Petitioner

¶70

Versus

¶71

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

¶72

(4 of 8)

¶73

[CW-10767/2019]

¶74

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.

¶75

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.

¶76

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Desuri, Distt. Pali.

¶77

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶78

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Desuri, Distt. Pali.

¶79

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶80

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Bagol, Distt. Pali. 9. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Raunija, District Bharatpur.

¶81

----Respondents

¶82

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15980/2019

¶83

Roop Narayan S/o Vasudev, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Naam, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶84

----Petitioner

¶85

Versus

¶86

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

¶87

The Chief Executive Officer, Zil Parishad, Bikaner.

¶88

The Chief Executive Officer, Zil Parishad, Bharatpur.

¶89

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat, Distt. Bikaner.

¶90

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶91

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Kolayat, Distt. Bikaner.

¶92

The Chief Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶93

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Nagrasar, District Bikaner

¶94

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Gagwana, District Bharatpur.

----Respondents

(5 of 8)

[CW-10767/2019]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr. D.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal-AAG

¶99

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶100

Order

¶101

13/11/2019

¶102

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision in similar writ petitions disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2019 (main petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15411/2018).

¶103

The operative part of the order dated 14.03.2019 reads as under:

¶104

‘’I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶105

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were recruited as Teachers Gr.III during Recruitment, 2012 and were posted at particular districts. When Recruitment, 2013 was held, the petitioners with a view to take chance to get appointment in their home districts, again applied and were successful in getting appointments at district of their choice.

¶106

Based on the above situation, they applied for permission to get relieved from place of their posting. Apparently, the relieving was not granted forcing the petitioners to resign from the post for taking up the assignment at their home districts/ districts of their choice pursuant to the Recruitment, 2013.

¶107

When similar nature matters came up before this Court, wherein, petitioners were directed to be

¶108

(6 of 8)

¶109

[CW-10767/2019]

¶110

relieved by way of interim order and they were relieved and the period of their service was not being counted for the purpose of provisions of Rule 24 & 26 of the Rules of 1996, petitions were decided by lead judgment in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), wherein, following directions were issued:-

¶111

“In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.

¶112

It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.

¶113

In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier.”

¶114

Pursuant thereto, vide Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1), the respondents have decided not to challenge the order (supra) and have issued guidelines for following the directions in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra), while superseding the Circulars dated 2.9.2015 and 4.12.2017.

¶115

In view of the fact that the circulars, which have been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, already stand superseded by order dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1) and essentially the relief as prayed has been granted by the respondents, the petitions to that extent have been rendered infructuous.

¶116

However, in view of the fact that in case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra), the candidates had not resigned and they were relieved under the directions of the Court and the present petitioners had resigned from previous service, their

¶117

(7 of 8)

¶118

[CW-10767/2019]

¶119

cases are sought to be distinguished. Such distinction is contrary to the express provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:-

¶120

“Rule 25. Forfeiture of service on resignation

¶121

(1) Resignation from a service or a post, entails forfeiture of past service.

¶122

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

¶123

(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under subrule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time admissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government service on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.”

¶124

A bare look at sub-Rule 2 of Rule 25 reveals that even if a resignation is given to take up with proper permission, another appointment under the Government, where the service qualifies, the same does not entail forfeiture of past service and in those circumstances, the stand sought to be taken by the respondents on account of the resignations given by the petitioners, cannot be sustained.

¶125

Even in cases, where it is submitted that permission was not taken, in view of the fact that the Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1) does not make any distinction in the case of resignation and as the petitioners instead of approaching the Court as in the case of Dhanraj Meena & ors. (supra) were forced to resign, they cannot be discriminated.

¶126

So far as the fact that in cases where permission was granted to the petitioners indicating restrictions is concerned, as the restrictions indicated are de hors

¶127

(8 of 8)

¶128

[CW-10767/2019]

¶129

the Rules and specifically Rule 25(2) of the Rules of 1996, cannot take away the benefits of the petitioners as conferred under the statute.

¶130

In view of the above factual and legal position, merely on account of petitioners have tendered resignation, they cannot be deprived of the benefit of counting of their past services.

¶131

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to same relief as granted in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra) / Virender Singh (supra) as per Circular dated 9.8.2018 (Annex.R/1).

¶132

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of two months from today.

¶133

No order as to costs.’’

¶134

All the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15411/2018 and other connected petitions.

¶135

(SABINA),J

¶136

5-10/amit/-

Dashrath Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Kumar Saini 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ekta Shukla Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Madhu Sharma Vs Managing Committee Raj. Mahila Andors

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suraj Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan