Allowed

Vivek Bharadwaj v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC16 Sept 2022CW/4086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition seeking career advancement and senior scale benefits. The Court directed the respondents to count the petitioner's previous services from a prior institution. The judgment held that non-disclosure of the first employer in the prescribed format did not defeat the claim, especially as the Rules were beneficial legislation and the omission caused no ad

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the case for career advancement scheme, fix the petitioner in senior and selection scale by counting previous services, and grant the benefits with interest.

Vivek Bharadwaj Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4086/2018

¶3

Vivek Bharadwaj S/o Late Shri Mahendra Bal Bharadwaj, R/o 18, Goverdhan Colony, Sanjay Nagar Road, Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer, At Present Working as Physical Training Instructor, PTI in Govt. College, Sangod, District Kota Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Commissioner, College Education, Dr. Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, J.LN. Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶10

: Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat : Mr. Aditya Sharma, Dy. G.C.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

16/09/2022

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed present writ

¶15

petition with following prayers:

¶16

“ (a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction whereby the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for career advancement scheme and he be placed in the senior and selection scale by counting his previous services rendered in Shri Jain Terapanth College, Marwar Ranawas, District Pali (Raj.) from 24.07.1995 to 23.10.1998 while working on the post of PTI.

¶17

(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction whereby the respondents be directed to pass necessary orders in this regard making fixation of the petitioner in the senior/selection scale by counting his

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

[CW-4086/2018]

¶20

previous services and make payment of arrears with interest @ 24% per annum.

¶21

(c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction whereby the respondents be directed to grant benefit of senior scale and selection scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.07.1995 instead of 23.10.1998.

¶22

(d) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) against an aided and sanctioned post in Shri Jain Terapanth College, Marwar Ranawas, District Pali (Raj.), on 24.07.1995. The petitioner rendered his services in the said college from 1995 to 1998. Thereafter, he was appointed against the sanctioned and aided post in Shri Pragya College Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer vide order dated 09.10.1998, by the duly assigned selection committee. It is submitted that the petitioner continued in the said institute till 31.07.2011, after which he was appointed in the Government Institution under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 2010’).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 defines the terms and conditions for appointment of employees in Government Service for the regularly appointed existing employees who were working in sanctioned Government Aided Educational Institutions, like the present petitioner. Further, as per Rule 5(iv), the employees appointed under the said rules were allowed the benefit of Assured Career Progression/Career Advancement Scheme, as allowed to the other employees of the State Government, from the date of their appointment on the sanctioned and aided posts. Learned

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CW-4086/2018]

¶27

counsel submitted that UGC revised the Career Advancement Scheme and the new scheme was introduced by Government of Rajasthan, vide order dated 19.05.2001 and the same was made effective from 27.07.1998 onwards. Learned counsel contends that as per revised guidelines for counting experience of a person before appointment as Lecturer in University/college for purpose of Career Advancement Scheme, issued vide order dated 18.01.1991 (marked as Annexure-5), the services rendered by the petitioner in Shri Jain Terapanth College, Marwar Ranawas, District Pali (Raj) ought to have been considered. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had duly fulfilled the requirements under the Rules of 2010, but the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme was not given and, therefore, being aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by judgment of Anoop Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CWP No.14290/2015) passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has been upheld by Division Bench vider order dated 15.04.2021 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.674/2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.-14290/2015, titled as The State of Rajasthan Vs. Anoop Kumar Sharma.

¶28

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has raised serious objections. He has submitted that the petitioner had concealed vital facts, in violation of Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2010, as required in the prescribed format. The petitioner had concealed the fact of his engagement and employment at Shri Jain Terapanth College, Marwar Ranawas, District Pali from 1995 to 1998 and had only referred and disclosed the name of his second employer i.e. Shri Pragya College Bijay Nagar, District Ajmer. On account of the

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[CW-4086/2018]

¶31

said fact, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable, as he has not fulfilled the mandate of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010 because, had he disclosed his previous employment, the Screening Committee might have taken an adverse view. Therefore, on account of his own concealment, the petitioner is estopped from getting the desired prayer.

¶32

Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 6. It is analyzed that the Rules of 2010 are beneficial piece of legislation. Considering the scarcity and deficiency in the education side, the State Government had formulated the said rules. This court is of the view that the petitioner had duly disclosed what was desired and required as per the format prescribed under Rule 4(1). The petitioner disclosed the name of his last employer, where he had rendered his services for more than 12 years. There was no reason for concealing the name of the first employer, when the same was not required in the said format. Moreover, the fact that petitioner had worked at erstwhile institute from 1995 to 1998 would have no negative effect on the applicability of the benefit in question. The judgment of Anoop Kumar Sharma (supra), passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein, after considering Rule 5 of Rules 2010, the entire period of service was directed to be considered for purpose of grant of selection scale and senior scale, is squarely applicable. 7. Considering the spirit, aim and objective of the Rules of 2010, which are a beneficial piece of legislation; and that no adverse effect would have been caused to the employer, even if the said information about erstwhile employment, which is

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

[CW-4086/2018]

¶35

purported to be concealed, had been reflected; and by relying upon judgment of Anoop Kumar Sharma (supra) , this court deems it fit to allow the writ petition on the prayer so made.

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. This court directs the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for career advancement scheme and place him in the senior and selection scale by counting his previous services rendered in Shri Jain Terapanth College, Marwar Ranawas, District Pali (Raj.).

¶37

Compliance of this order be made by the respondents within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of this order in their office.

¶38

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶40

JKP/27

Vivek Bharadwaj v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Bharadwaj v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girdhari Gurjar S/O Shri Sharvan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Tahir Khan S/O Kamardeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Sundra Lal @ Sunder Lal Son of Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harisingh S/O Late Vasudave Vs Managing Director

Shane Aalam @ Shanu S/O Yunush Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Mali S/O Shri Heera Lal Vs State of Rajasthan