Disposed

Lal Chand Verma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2019CW/17358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition appealed for treating petitioners senior to lower merit candidates and granting consequential service benefits. Court disposed petition directing respondents to consider a representation within three months to decide on granting notional benefits if seniority is placed above lower merit candidates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to R.No.2 to consider representation and decide on granting notional seniority and benefits within three months.

Lal Chand Verma 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. 17358/2019

¶3

Lal Chand Verma S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Samota Ka Bas, Post Shahpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

Pooja Dhanawat D/o Bhola Ram Somvanshi, W/o Amit Kumar,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mohalla Shivpura, Ratti Ka Kua, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director (Secondary Education), Bikaner.

¶9

The Deputy Director (Secondary) Education Department, Kota Division, Kota.

¶10

The Deputy Director (Secondary) Education Department, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

22/11/2019

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.C.W.P. No.7283/2014, decided on 16.07.2014 at Jaipur Bench and the said judgment has been followed in Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-17358/2019]

¶20

S.B.C.W.P. No.19179/2017, decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur Bench, and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra).

¶21

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra), which read as under:-

¶22

“This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009(1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.

¶23

It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.

¶24

The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

¶25

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to make a representation to respondent NO.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, alongwith a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners for extending them

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-17358/2019]

¶28

the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent No.2 decides to place the petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits.”

¶29

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶30

Ravi Kh./109-/-

Lal Chand Verma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Chand Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Gajja Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Indra Ameta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ram Kishore @ Pappu Ram Vs Gagandeep Singla

Rajni Chugh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Maheshwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajrang Bali Banberu Vs State of Rajasthan