Dismissed

Dr Mrs Asha Rani Vartak v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2019CW/3788/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed. The High Court held the petitioner is not entitled to other relief as she accepted the service scale offered vide order dated 20/12/2006 after joining services based on an earlier order, leading to the Educational Tribunal's order being without infirmity.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as having no merit with consequential dismissal of pending applications including stay application.

Dr Mrs Asha Rani Vartak Vs State of Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3788/2018

¶3

Dr. Mrs. Asha Rani Vartak Wife Of Col. A.r. Vartak Ex Rmo Mayo College Girls School, Ajmer, Cas, R/o 40/1105, Heritage City, Mg Road, Gurgaon Haryana.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶7

Mayo College Governing Council, Ajmer Through Its Secretary/chairman.

¶8

Management Committee, Mayo College Girls School, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶9

The Mayo College Girls School, Ajmer Through Its Principal

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Adv. with Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akash Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Zakawat Ali, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

20/08/2019

¶15

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following

¶16

reliefs:-

¶17

"An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for quashing the impunged judgment dated 22.1.2018(Annex-6) passed by the RNGEIT, Jaipur Application No. 617/2014-Dr. (Smt. ) Asha Rani Vartak V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. with further direction for granting the relief NO.(i) to (v) prayed for by the petitioner-applicant before the Learned Tribunal with consequential relief.

¶18

(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, to quash any adverse order, if passed

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-3788/2018]

¶21

during the pendency of the writ petition frustrating the cause of instant writ petition. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Cost of the writ petition."

¶22

The respondents issued an advertisement dated 25/04/2006 inviting applications for the post of Residential Medical Officer (RMO) for the Mayo College Girls School, Ajmer. The petitioner after undergoing selection process was given appointment vide order dated 03/06/2006 which was a consent letter issued by the Principal for appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner joined services in pursuance of the appointment order on 09/07/2006.

¶23

The bone of contention of in the present matter is that the petitioner claims that she should have been given salary at Rs.19000/- +DA, CCA, PF, Gratuity & HRA as per the College Rules as offered to her vide order dated 06/07/2006 (Annexure-7). 4. The respondents, however, claim that this was not the offer made to the petitioner and the offer was Annexure-9 of the same date i.e. 06/07/2006 as per which consolidated salary of Rs.19000/- per month was to be paid.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner kept on representing the respondents but the same was not considered and hence claim was filed by her before the learned Educational Tribunal to receive benefits in accordance with Annexure-7. Counsel further submits that the Mayo College General Council Teaching & Administrative Staff Service Rules (applicable from 01/04/2008) should have been made applicable in the present matter. Counsel further submits that the petitioner continued to represent before the respondents but on their failure to act upon the petitioner's representation,, the petitioner was forced to take resort to the learned Educational Tribunal.

¶25

Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the order dated 06/07/2006 (Annexure-9) and she duly joined. She superannuated on 05/07/2008 and the superannuation order is on record as Annexure-21 dated 25/06/2008 and thereafter, she was

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-3788/2018]

¶28

allowed to continue on contractual basis on consolidated payment of Rs.27,000/- per month up-till 2013. Counsel further submits that in case the petitioner was to have any claim, then the same could have been brought in the year 2006 or in a reasonable time period. Counsel further submits that the grievance, as per the petitioner, arose on 06/07/2006 and the petitioner could not have filed the claim belatedly after seven years of her superannuation which happened on 05/07/2008. Counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has clearly found that Annexure-9 was the applicable order and also submits that even while not opting the Annexure-9, the petitioner had accepted another order dated 20/12/2006 which was Annexure-15 and as per which, she was receiving pay of Rs.23,993/- including all emoluments for the post of CAS.

¶29

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record, this Court finds that the order of the learned Educational Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and the factual matrix do not call for any interference. From the facts that the petitioner joined in pursuance of the order dated 06/07/2006 and willfully accepted the scale offered to her vide order dated 20/12/2006 (Annexure-15) and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief. This Court also finds that the petitioner had superannuated on 05/07/2008 whereas the claim has been raised belatedly in the year 2014.

¶30

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. All pending applications including stay application also stand dismissed.

¶31

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶32

RAGHUVEER PRASAD SHARMA /27

Dr Mrs Asha Rani Vartak v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mrs Asha Rani Vartak v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Kamaldeep Meena S/O Shri Babu Lal Meena Vs Rajasthan Railway Recruitment Board

Ram Bharose Lal Sharma S/O Shri Lal Chand Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Renu D/O Shri Suresh Kumar, W/O Rajpal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Navratan Carpenter S/O Late Ganga Ram Sharma, Vs Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan

Pradeep S/O Kitru Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Navariya (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Kalyan Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation