Dismissed

Lokendra Singh Maharey v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2020CW/1295/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, teaching staff at Zila Parishad, sought notional service benefits and seniority from 1997, claiming discrimination against him based on a prior writ petition. The High Court held that since no candidate junior in merit was appointed prior to his 2002 appointment, the claim for retrospective benefits failed and the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for notional benefits and service benefits from 1997 was rejected; writ petition dismissed.

Lokendra Singh Maharey Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1295/2006

¶4

Lokendra Singh Maharey S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Maharey Aged 40 years R/o 350 Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur presetly working on the post of Teacher Garde-III Govt. Primary School, Bawash mandir Nithar P.S. Weir Distt. Bharatpur.

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

V/s

¶7

State of Rajashan through secretary primary Education Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Director primary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan,

¶9

District Education Officers primary Education Distt. Bharatpur.

¶10

Block Elementary education officers Panchayat Samiti Weir Distt. Bharatpur.

¶11

The District Establishment Committee (Zila Parishad)

¶12

Bharatpur through its Chief executive Officer.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria on behalf of Dr. Ganesh Parihar Mr. C.L.Saini

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

(2 of 4)

[CW-1295/2006]

14/09/2020

The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed as under:

¶21

“(I) Respondent may be directed to allow pay scale, seniority increments and others service benefits to the petitioner from dated 30.11.1997 by which 139 candidate have been allowed appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III at Zila Parishad Bharatpur under the same writ peititon No. 3436/1997 decided by Hon’ble by Hon’ble High court in the matter of Lokendra Singh Mahuse & Ors V/s. State and ors.

¶22

(ii) Respondents may further be directed to maintain the seniority of all the candidates to whom allowed appointments on the post of Teacher Garde-III at Zila Parishad, Bharatpur under the aforesaid writ peition by Hon’ble High Court at par.

¶23

(iii) Any other order or direction which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had to prefer the writ petition before this court as he was not given appointment. The said writ petition was decided on 30.3.2000 whereafter he has fled a contempt petition and thereafter the petitioner was given appointment as Teacher GradeIII vide order dated 17.1.2002.

¶25

(3 of 4) [CW-1295/2006]

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the other candidates who were selected under the same advertisement, were given appointment on 30.11.1997 and therefore, the petitioner ought to be given notional benefits from 13^th November, 1997.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has however objected to grant of benefits from 13^th November, 1997 as it is stated that the petitioner was in General Category and was given appointment and he obtained 88.79 percent marks and his position in merit list was 107. He was therefore held not entitled for appointment whereafter he preferred a writ petition and the court directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the 119 vacant posts. In pursuance of the directions, the case of the petitioner was considered and he was thereafter given appointment vide order dated 17.1.2002 and he joined duties on 24.1.2002. There was no direction to give to the petitioner appointment from the date other persons were given appointment in 1997. The petitioner preferred contempt proceedings which were also finalized and contempt proceedings were dropped after the petitioner was given appointment. The present claim of the petitioner therefore does not survive.

¶28

I have considered the submissions.

¶29

Ordinarily, a person who has been directly recruited would be entitled to all service benefits from the date he was appointed. It is only in cases where there is discrimination and persons lessor in merit has been given appointment from an earlier date that a claim for benefits from prior can be set up by the said individual.

¶30

(4 of 4) [CW-1295/2006]

¶31

In the present case, this court does not find aforesaid

¶32

position existing, the petitioner has been appointed in 2002 and no person junior to him in merit was appointed prior to him.

¶33

In view thereof, the case for notional benefits or benefits from the date senior persons were given appointment is not made out.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition found to be devoid of merits and same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶36

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶37

Anu /7

Lokendra Singh Maharey v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra Singh Maharey 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Chand S/O Late Shri Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Alchem International Limited Vs Sanjay Yadav S/O Hukamchand Yadav

Dinesh Chand Saxena S/O Shri Rambabu Saxena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amar Chand Sharma Son of Shri Ram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Vs Cief Executive Officer Andanr

Shikha Saraswat D/O Shri Shyam Swroop Saraswat, W/O Kunj Bihari Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan