Disposed

Indraj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Jul 2020CW/3713/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-accordance of seniority and consequential benefits compared to lower merit candidates. Court disposed of the petition directing respondents to make a speaking order within three months addressing the grievance for extending relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing respondents to consider petitioners' grievance for extending service benefits including seniority and pay by a speaking order within three months.

Indraj Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3713/2020

¶4

Indraj S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Lakhasar, Tehsil Shree Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶5

Oma Ram Godara S/o Shri Bhagawana Ram Godara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Gupani, Tehsil Shree Dungargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. L. Deora

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

20/07/2020

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. v. 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. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 19179/2017 , decided on 30.10.2017 at Jaipur Bench. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Manoj Khandelwal (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra) claims learned counsel.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-3713/2020]

¶19

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by

¶20

the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in

¶21

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 a 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 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.”

¶26

Stay application is also disposed of.

¶27

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶28

29-A.Arora/-

Indraj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraj 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

Ankit Paliwal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Chandra Sekhar Yadav Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Pramila Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Narain Lal Vs State

Khana Ram Chotiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Harijan Vs the State of Rajasthan