Allowed

Ramesh Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2023CW/2318/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench held the writ petition was not res-integra as a coordinate bench had already disposed of the legal issue in Navneet Jain. Applying Dal Chand Jat, the court allowed the writ, quashed impugned orders, and directed non-recovery of excess benefits, distinguishing actual from notional service periods.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 02.09.2020 and 024.09.2020 removed/reviewed as well as a subsequent order dated 07.01.2023 were quashed. Recovery of notional benefits was directed to be barred.

Ramesh Chandra Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:39799]

[CW-2318/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2318/2023

¶6

Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Shri Shankarlal Meena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Hilgat, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶7

Hiralal Rathore S/o Shri Ramlal Rathore, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sutharo Ki Gali, Chupna, Tehsil Arnod, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶8

Kamla Bariya D/o Shri Galba Bariya, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Housing Board Colony, Banswara, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶9

Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Shri Manna Lal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Doharana, Post Neerawata, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶10

Bherulal Meena S/o Shri Deva Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Dorana, Post Jirawata, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶11

Kantilal Aanjana S/o Mangilal Aanjana, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Movai, Tehsil Arnod, District Pratapgarh, Raj.

¶12

Chagan Lal Meena S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Meena, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Ruparel, Post Bordiya, District Pratapgarh, Raj.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶16

Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶17

Director (Elementary Education), Bikaner.

¶18

Joint Director (Personnel), Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶19

District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Elementary Education, Pratapgarh.

¶20

District Education Officer, (Secondary Education), Pratapgarh.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Dev Patolia. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhawna Jangid, Dy. G.C.

¶23

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

[2023:RJ-JD:39799]

[CW-2318/2023]

(2 of 4)

Order

21/11/2023

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that issue involved in the present writ petition is no more res-integra as the same has been covered by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Navneet Jain Vs. State of

¶30

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12100/2020) decided on 04.09.2023, which reads as follows:-

¶31

“1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2020 and order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexures-11 & 12, respectively), whereby the respondents have reviewed the earlier order by which actual / notional benefits were granted to the petitioner. By way of impugned order the recovery of the amount paid in excess has also been initiated.

¶32

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not mislead or misrepresented and benefits which were granted to him by the respondent – State was in accordance with law. It was submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 13.08.2019 in the case of Dal Chand Jat vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3063/2019.

¶33

3. Learned counsel submitted that the only difference in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) and the present case is that in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) the recruitment was of the year 2012-2013, whereas in petitioner’s case the same pertains to year 2006.

¶34

4. Ms. Bhawna Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment in the

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:39799]

[CW-2318/2023]

case of Dal Chand Jat (supra) and the same is pending consideration and therefore, the present writ petition be kept pending.

¶39

5. However, learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the position of law, as has been settled by this Court in the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra).

¶40

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending, particularly when an interim order has been passed in petitioner’s favour by this Court on 12.11.2020.

¶41

7. In the case of Dal Chand Jat (supra), this Court has held thus:

¶42

“After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record of the case, this Court finds that the purport of the case law mentioned above are that the petitioners, who were equally entitled and eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.-III where out of advertisement of 2012-2013 at level I and level II for various subjects are to be treated at par with each other. The discrimination on account of joining duties due to various bone of contentions relating to eligibility and qualifications have been nullified by aforesaid judgments, including in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and since all the candidates who are now found eligible and as per existing case law and the judgments of the Apex Court, they have to be treated at par with each other. There cannot be any doubt regarding expressions made by this Court in the previous litigation that these all the petitioners who stand in merit and who have qualified 2012-2013 recruitment for the post of Teacher Grade-III would be entitled for the notional benefits for the purpose including pay fixation and seniority from the date their equivalent or lesser merit person in that phase of recruitment was given such benefits. This Court also finds that focal averment raised by the respondents that no monetary benefits can be

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:39799]

[CW-2318/2023]

accorded to the petitioners for the period when they were not actually discharging services, is also a consistently answered in the precedent of law laid down by this Court. Thus, taking strength from the same precedent of law as cited by counsel for the parties, these petitions are disposed off with a direction to the respondents that petitioners shall be paid the notional benefits, including benefits of seniority and pay fixation from the stage when the appointment of persons at the same or lesser merit were appointed. However, no monetary benefits where the petitioners not having discharged actual services would be payable. Needless to say that any notional fixation or any notional benefits which has resulted into current payment and current position where the petitioners are discharging their services, shall not be recovered and shall be continued to be paid.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that no recovery in line with the aforesaid observations be made from the petitioners.”

¶48

8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

¶49

9. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 and order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexures-11 and 12, respectively) are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶50

10. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.”

¶51

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure-3) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶52

All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶53

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶54

1-/Jitender//-

Ramesh Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Meena 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

Pushotam Das Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sudha Rani Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Mona Sood Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramu Ram Vs Bhagirath Ram

Sushila Vs State and Ors.