Allowed

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Education Department v. Shishpal S/O Munshi Ram

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023SAW/826/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench held that a Single Judge erred in deciding a writ petition for regularization and equal pay without issuing notice to the State. The appeal was allowed, and the order was quashed, remitting the matter for a fresh hearing with notices to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal allowed; impugned order of the Single Judge dated 16.07.2018 quashed; matter remitted for fresh hearing.

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.826/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14672/2018

¶5

State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Education Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

¶6

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶7

District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bikaner (Raj.)

¶8

District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶9

----Appellants/Respondents

¶10

Versus

¶11

Shishpal S/o Munshi Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 2 KWSM, Khairuwala, Gram Panchayat Pechlwan Ka Bera, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner at present working as ParaTeacher/Shiksha Sahyogi in GUPS Khairuwala Bikaner.

¶12

Suman D/o Richhapal Singh W/o Budharam, R/o Village Chak, 2 Lkd, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner at present working as Para-Teacher/Shiksha Sahyogi in Gps 1 Lkd, Bikaner

¶13

Suman Kumari W/o Ramawatar Yadav, R/o Village Ratane Wala, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Ganganagar at present working as Para-Teacher/ Shiksha Sahyogi in GPS 1 CDM, Ganganagar

¶14

Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi S/o Manohar Lal, R/o Chak 3 NGM, 179 Ki Fal, Pugal Branch, Dantor Road, Khajuwala, District Bikaner at present working as Para-Teacher/ Shiksha Sahyogi GPS 19 KJD (Khajuwala) Bikaner

¶15

----Non Appellants/Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶17

[SAW-826/2019]

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶20

Order

¶21

15/05/2023

¶22

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellantsState-Employer challenging the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

This Court had issued notices in the present special appeal and additionally this Court had directed counsel for the appellants-AAG to serve a copy of the memo of appeal in the office of Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Barala, Adv. who was appearing in the main writ petition on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners.

¶24

This Court finds that on several occasions notices were issued to the respondents, however, nobody appeared on their behalf and as such, on an application filed by the State for presumption of service on respondents, this Court on 28.04.2023 allowed the application of the appellants-State filed under Rule 99 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and service on the respondents was treated to be effected.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

This Court finds that the appellants-State in the present special appeal feels aggrieved by the direction given by learned Single Judge on 16.07.2018, as the same was passed without issuing notice to the respondents-State.

¶27

Learned AAG for the appellants-State Mr.C.L. Saini submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondents-writ petitioners was for seeking relief of regularization of their services,

¶28

[SAW-826/2019]

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

from the date of their initial appointment and further they claimed ‘equal pay for equal work’ on the post as given to Teacher GradeIII.

¶31

Learned AAG for the appellants-State Mr.C.L. Saini submitted that the respondents were only appointed on the post of Para Teacher/Shiksha Sahayak and as such, their claim for regularization of service and grant of same pay as given to the regular appointed Teachers, could not have been granted by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

Learned AAG for the appellants-State submitted that learned Single Judge only on the basis of decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in [2017 (1) SCC 148] could not have allowed the writ petition ex-parte .

¶33

Learned AAG for the appellants-State further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also referred to an order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Budh Singh vs Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1882/2016 .

¶34

Learned AAG for the appellants-State submitted that the facts relating to the nature of post on which the respondentspetitioners were appointed and further their prayer of regularization, could not have been granted by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

We have considered the submissions made by learned AAG for the appellants-State and perused the material available on record.

¶36

(4 of 4) [SAW-826/2019]

¶37

We find that the writ petition was filed by the respondents-petitioners before the Single Bench and the matter was listed before the Court, for the first time on 16.07.2018 and the Single Judge decided the writ petition even without issuing notice, to the present appellants-State.

¶38

We, therefore, find that learned Single Judge has simply relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) and Budh Singh vs Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (supra) , even without adverting to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the writ petition was allowed. We are in complete agreement with the submission of counsel for the appellants-State that if at all case of the respondents was to be examined for grant of any relief, at least, discussion should have been there and some findings should have been given by the learned Single Judge.

¶39

We find that the direction given by the learned Singe Judge even without issuing notice to the Employer, is not proper and justified.

¶40

We accordingly allows the present special appeal and the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.

¶41

This Court remits the matter back to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties and learned Single Judge may also issue notices to the respondents before taking up the matter finally.

¶42

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶43

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶44

Himanshu Soni/131

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Education Department v. Shishpal S/O Munshi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Education Department v. Shishpal S/O Munshi Ram

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

Mahesh Gupta S/O Late Sh. A.K. Gupta, Vs Nirmal Nagori

Smt. Prem Bai W/O Ashok Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Manisha R.A.S. Vs Advocate Umesh Kumar Gaur R/828/1993

Commissioner, Department of College Education, Vs Educom Solutions Private Limited

Ajmer Singh Vs Deputy Director

Shree Krishna Vatika Homes LLP Vs Shri Indra Vijay Singh S/O Col. Shri Govind Singh Ji