Allowed

Prakash Chandra Tiwari Son of Shri Kainhiya Lal Tiwari v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2022CW/14238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition allowing regular appointment and seniority from the date of initial appointment for the petitioner as per the Division Bench judgment in Shyam Lal Tailor case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to obtain regular appointment and seniority from the date of initial appointment; pending applications disposed of.

Prakash Chandra Tiwari Son of Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14238/2021

¶3

Prakash Chandra Tiwari Son Of Shri Kainhiya Lal Tiwari, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot A-112-B, Tapovan Vihar, Near Cbi Colony Fatak, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour, Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Training, Technical Education, Rajasthan, W- 6, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy.G.C.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶11

Order

¶12

22/07/2022

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question has now been decided by the Division Bench in the case of Shyam Lal Tailor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1025/2020) (decided on 05.03.2022).

¶14

The Division Bench in Shyam Lal Tailor’s case (supra), held as under:-

¶15

“In cases of those employees who have been appointed before 16.07.1991 and were possessed of the eligibility criteria vide amended notification dated 08.07.2009, they would be entitled to regular appointment only from the date of issuance of order of regular appointment and not before that. In other words,

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-14238/2021]

¶18

the scheme of the rules, after amendment vide notification dated 18.02.2019, clearly has two classes, i.e. those employees, who were appointed on or before 16.07.1991 and those who were appointed after 16.07.1991. As an upshot, of above after discussion and analysis of statutory scheme, though, the petitioners having been appointed after 16.07.1991, i.e. in the year 1993 and possessed of eligibility criteria as per amended notification dated 18.05.1999 would be entitled to regular appointment from the date of their order of appointments i.e. date of initial appointments. They are entitled to seniority also from the date of initial appointments with all consequential benefit of seniority from that date. Petitions are accordingly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent does not refute the above submission.

¶20

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment as passed in Shyam Lal Tailor’s case (supra). All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶21

The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ petition if any claim is left out.

¶22

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶23

Upendra Pratap Singh /109

Prakash Chandra Tiwari Son of Shri Kainhiya Lal Tiwari v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra Tiwari Son of Shri Kainhiya Lal Tiwari v. the 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

Smt Suvita and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Son of Shri Chirmoli Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt Sugan Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Mr. Babu Lal S/O Sh. Mangalchand Vs Tehsildar

Sunny Kumar @ Monu S/O Raj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Meena S/O Sh. Bharat Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan