Allowed

Hanumana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CW/2734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, teachers posted in Teacher Service Personnel (TSP) areas not hailing from those regions, sought relocation. The court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a prior batch order dated 02.02.2023, directing the State government to move them to Non-TSP areas within six months without loss of seniority, subject to verification of petition averments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be moved to Non-TSP areas within six months without loss of seniority or demotion in the list, subject to state's verification of averments.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014199]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2734/2023

¶4

Hanumana Ram S/o Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Aspalsar Bada, Tehsil Sadar Shahr, District Churu, Raj.

¶5

Jitendra Sharma S/o Shri Prahlad Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Narsas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Raj.

¶6

Ganeshlal Dangi S/o Shri Shankarlal Dangi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Khodip, District Chittorgarh, Raj.

¶7

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Rupwas, District Tonk, Raj.

¶8

Sher Singh Kushwaha S/o Shri Harbhan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Rota, District Dausa, Raj.

¶9

Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Gunawata, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Raj.

¶10

Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Shiv Bhagwan Bhardwaj, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Loharwada, Govindgarh, Jaipur, Raj.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

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

¶14

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶15

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 4. The District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Secondary Education, Pratapgarh.

¶16

The District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Elementary Education, Pratapgarh.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Dhariyadity Rathore

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/014199]

[CW-2734/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶23

Order

¶24

09/05/2023

¶25

The counsel for the petitioners submit that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this court passed in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.981/2022 (Chet Ram Meena V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 02.02.2023 in the following terms:

¶26

“1. Petitioners in all these petitions have approached this court with a common grievance that in spite of the fact that the petitioners do not hail from TSP area, they have been posted at places which were either in a TSP area or have been included in TSP area by virtue of the notification issued from time to time by the President of India in this regard.

¶27

2. It is argued that petitioners have been retained in TSP area regardless of an earlier decision that was taken by the competent authority, to shuffle them out of TSP area in furtherance of concern expressed by the Department of Personnel.

¶28

3. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General places before the court Minutes of a Meeting dated 06.01.2023 drawn by a high level Committee constituted by the State Government and points out that in light of the such decision, all the petitioners would be moved to Non- TSP area in phased manner.

¶29

4. A photocopy of the Minutes of the Meeting which has been produced by Mr. Sharma, learned AAG, is taken on record.

¶30

5. All these petitions are disposed of in light of the above referred decision of the State Government in the meeting held on 06.01.2023.

¶31

6. State shall ensure that the decision taken qua these petitioners is given effect to as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶32

7. Needless to observe that since the petitioners will be moved out of their respective districts on account of the decision of the State Government (and not at their own request) they shall not lose their seniority and they will not be placed in bottom of the seniority list,

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/014199]

[CW-2734/2023]

which is so done in case a candidate opts for to it on his own accord.

¶37

8. The stay application (s) also stands disposed of accordingly”.

¶38

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms.

¶39

In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by this court in the case of Chet Ram Meena (Supra).

¶40

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

¶41

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶42

34-SanjayS/-

Hanumana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumana 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

Abhay Kumar Dhamaniya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Bheraram Jany Vs State of Rajasthan

Harpal Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Pooja Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushpa Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Meenu Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan