This order disposes of a writ petition regarding salary and increment benefits of teachers by closing proceedings and directing petitioners to submit representations in light of a prior coordinate bench judgment.
Petitioners directed to address comprehensive representation to respondents; respondents to decide by reasoned order within twelve weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13900/2024
(2 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
[CW-13900/2024]
Years, R/o Kayam Nagar Deedwana, Presently Posted At Barangana Deedwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman.
(3 of 6)
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
[CW-13900/2024]
Years, R/o Barwala Makrana, Presently Posted At No. 1 Kuchaman, District Didwana-Kuchaman.
(4 of 6) [CW-13900/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
Years, R/o Ward No. 57 Bikaner, Presently Posted At Gsss Bikaner District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Chowdhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order
29/08/2024
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application, is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs. The
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
[CW-13900/2024]
(5 of 6)
State of Rajasthan:SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on 20th January, 2014, observing thus:
“It is stated that petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the post of Teacher vide order dated 24.01.1992. After joining on 28.01.1992, petitioner was entitled for benefit of service and salary for summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid benefit and increment was shifted to the month of March despite of joining of petitioner in the month of January. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to pay salary of summer vacation and also the date of increment be made to January, 1993.
The officer-in-charge of the respondents could not justify the action of the respondents, inasmuch as Circular dated28.07.2003 clarified that if employee has been appointed on regular basis on probation then he would be entitled for salary of summer vacation even if appointment is after 31stDecember. No justification is given by the respondents for denial of benefit of increment from January other than erroneously correlating it with the benefit of selection scale and thereby, shifting it by 48 days. I find the action of respondents is illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of salary of summer vacation as he is covered by the Circular. The petitioner should be given increment counting his service from the date of joining and not by shifting it to the month of March.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and consequential benefit would be given to the petitioner as referred above. He would be entitled to other benefits based on appointment order dated 24.01.1992 and his joining on 28.01.1992, thus benefit of selection scale would also be determined.”
Learned counsel further submits that, for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied if the State-respondents to address their representations within a time frame in the backdrop of the order dated 20th January, 2014 in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra),which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
[2024:RJ-JD:35777]
[CW-13900/2024]
(6 of 6)
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation to the respondentsDirector ventilating their grievances.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondents/Director are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
9-amit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the movement pending in the writ petition should be closed after reference to prior coordinate bench decision?
Whether the petitioners are directed to address comprehensive representation to the respondents regarding their grievances?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs. The State of RajasthanReferred¶76
Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs. The State of Rajasthan: SBCWP No.3534/2009
Prahlad Ram
Gopal Ram
Ashok Kumar
The State Of Rajasthan
Nupur Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
