Allowed

Kishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2023CW/1602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed writ petition seeking actual consequential benefits of salary for a retired employee who performed Principal duties since 2003. Court directed payment of benefits from 01.09.2006 relying on Division Bench precedent holding denial arbitrary post-DPC selection.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to extend all actual consequential benefits on the post of Principal with effect from 01.09.2006 within two months.

Kishna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1602/2019

¶3

Kishna Ram S/o Shri Likhma Ram, Aged About 71 Years, Outside Suraj Pole, Shanti Nagar, District Jalore.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education (Secondary), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Secondary Education, Department Of Education (Secondary), Bikaner.

¶8

District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore. 4. Additional Director, Pension And Pensioner Welfare Department, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Tayal
	Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar
	Mr. Ravi Panwar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

04/01/2023

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.04.2013, whereby the petitioner was directed to be paid the notional benefits on the post of Principal.

¶16

The brief facts to be noted in the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the post of Lecturer (School Education in History) in the year 1984 and thereafter, he was appointed as such vide order dated 19.10.1984. The petitioner was posted as Lecturer (History) vide order dated 22.10.1984 in Senior Secondary

¶17

(2 of 4) [CW-1602/2019]

¶18

School, Dhorimanna, Barmer against the vacant post. After completing the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Lecturer (History) w.e.f. 5.11.1986. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.2003, the petitioner was placed on the higher post i.e. Principal on Patay Vetan but he was continued to receive salary in the same pay band and grade of the post of Lecturer (History). The petitioner thereafter got superannuated in the year 2008. After superannuation of the petitioner, the department considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal and he was found suitable for the vacancies of the year 2005-06. The petitioner was granted the pay scale for the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006 as the order dated 18.04.2013 reflects the date of fixation in the pay scale of the petitioner on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had performed the duties of Principal, therefore he may be granted the actual benefits of salary, etc. w.e.f. 01.09.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that grant of notional benefits is denying the fruits of the services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Principal, more particularly when the DPC found him suitable for promotion on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (writ) No.821/2019 :: The State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi Narayan Soni decided on 31.07.2019. He therefore prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may be extended the actual consequential benefits on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-1602/2019]

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that since the petitioner has accepted the promotion on the basis of the scheme floated by the State Government for performing the duties on higher post on Patay Vetan basis, therefore, the actual benefits cannot be granted to him. He, therefore, prays that the orders passed by the respondent on 18.04.2013 does not warrant any interference and the writ petition is prayed to be dismissed.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned in the present case.

¶25

The petitioner was duly selected on the post of School Lecturer and while performing the duties of Lecturer, he was promoted on the post of Principal in the year 2003 on the basis of Patay Vetan . Subsequently, the DPC considered the case of the petitioner and found him suitable to hold the post of Principal on regular basis and thereafter issued promotion order in favour of the petitioner after the date of his superannuation i.e. on 18.04.2013. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the actual benefits to the petitioner on the post of Principal, more particularly, he was performing the duties of that post since the year 2003. The denial of the benefits on the post of Principal is arbitrary and unreasonable for all intents and purposes. The petitioner was performing the duties of Principal since 2003, however he was substantively promoted on that post by considering his case in the DPC held after his superannuation. The relevant para of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Laxmi Narayan Soni (supra) is reproduced as under :-

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CW-1602/2019]

¶28

“In the light of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the learned Single Judge’s directions given that all the petitioners were eligible at the time when they were given temporary appointment; they did not fulfill the description or fall within the exception of Rule 28(2) and most importantly all of them were eligible and could have been promoted with effect from the date they were made to officiate temporarily as Principals. But for the fact that no DPC was held, all of them were subsequently selected through regularly constituted DPC. In these circumstances the denial of salary and all benefits to them from the date of their initial temporary appointment (having regard to their subsequent selection and appointment on regular basis against the vacancies for the earlier period), could not be held to be arbitrary.”

¶29

This Court feels that since the petitioner was performing the duties of Principal, therefore the benefits accruing therefrom are required to be paid to him.

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and same is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend all the actual consequential benefits to the petitioner on the post of Principal w.e.f. 01.09.2006.The respondents are also directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶31

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶32

197-Praveen/-

Kishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishna Ram 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

M/S. Sugna Bricks Industries through Its Proprietors Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhera Ram Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Cto,Spl. Circle-I, Jodhpur Vs M/S Lodha Sons

Prakash Vs State Local Self and Ors.

M/S.Maruti Industries Vs State and Ors.

Sher Mohammad @ Shere Khan Vs State and Ors.