Dismissed

Shanker Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CW/875/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition concerning pay fixation and seniority benefits for government teachers. Despite arguments regarding discrimination against petitioners compared to other scholars, the High Court refused interference at the stage, directing expeditious administrative decision to ensure equal treatment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to decide the matter expeditiously.

Shanker Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:7961]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 875/2019

¶4

Shanker Lal Meena S/o Mahdev Prasad Meena, Aged About 39 Years, Bishanpura, Post Goner, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Presently Posted In Government Primary School, Prabhupura, Pokran District Jaisalmer.

¶5

Batti Lal Meena S/o Kalyan Lal Meena, Aged About 44 Years, Village Bhedoli, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur Presently Posted At Government Aadresh Vidhyalay, Tehsil Godamalani, District Barmer.

¶6

Suresh Chandra S/o Shri Ram Pujari, Aged About 41 Years, Village Post Kakrowa, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur, Presently Posted In Bharatpur.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sarwan Kumar,AGC.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order (Oral) 15/02/2024

¶14

Grievance of the petitioners herein arises out of inaction of the respondents for not according the benefit of pay fixation, regularization and seniority from the date of date of joining instead of date of completion of period of probation.

¶15

The petitioners applied for the posts of Principal, Secondary Education as per advertisement No. 1/2011-12. Petitioners were initially not included in the select declared by the RPSC. However, later on RPSC published a revised list, including the names of the

[2024:RJ-JD:7961]

[CW-875/2019]

(2of 4)

petitioners as well. Petitioners, on their selection as per the revised list, were appointed on probation for 2 years. Dissatisfied with the delay in their appointment, petitioners filed a writ petition before this court, seeking seniority and benefits. A co-ordinate bench then seized of the matter disposed of their petition permitting them to file representation for redressal of their grievances before the Director of Secondary Education. The Director, however, rejected their representation, stating benefits would be granted after the probation period, notwithstanding that other similarly candidates have been given the same benefits. Hence the present petition.

¶20

The respondents stand is that that the order dated 15.03.2018, regarding pay fixation, regularization, seniority, annual increment, and other benefits qua the petitioners after a 2- year probation period, is as per Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Additionally, they assert that the case of similarly situated Sh. Satish Chandra, who is stated to have got the benefit, is also under review, as the same happened erroneously.

¶21

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsels. 5. While learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that petitioners are being meted out with hostile discrimination as the departmental is approbating and reprobating at the same time, which is not permissible in law.

¶22

He points out that on the one hand counterparts of the petitioners, who are recruited pursuant to the same selection process, have been given the benefit of counting their services

[2024:RJ-JD:7961]

[CW-875/2019]

(3of 4)

w.e.f. the date of joining for the purposes of according benefit of selection grade / pay fixation / seniority to them, while on the other hand in the case of petitioners, the same very officer i.e. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner – respondent No.2 has passed a contradictory order and stated that in case of petitioners, the qualifying service period shall be counted on completion of the period of probation. He points out that same benefit has been given to counterparts of petitioners as stated in para-9 of the petition.

¶27

Next leg of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even for the purpose of promotion one Mr. Satish Chandra Jain (stated in para-10 of the petition) has been promoted on the post of Principal by counting his qualifying period in service w.e.f. the date of his appointment and not from the date of completion of probation.

¶28

Au contraire learned counsel for the respondents relies on the contents of the counter affidavit and states that the aforesaid illustrations fly in the face of unequivocal stand taken by the department that as the benefit was erroneously accorded to those employees, department is in the process of reviewing its earlier administrative order. A uniform decision across board will be taken qua all the candidates, who participated in the same selection process.

¶29

In view of what has been urged before the Court as well as in the reply filed to the petition, I see no reason to interfere at this stage.

[2024:RJ-JD:7961]

[CW-875/2019]

(4of 4)

Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the department that pending administrative decision, as noted above and pleaded in the reply to the petition, be taken as expeditiously as possible to avoid the unnecessary heart burn amongst the same set of officials. Equals cannot be treated unequally.

¶34

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶35

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶36

87-Sumit/-

¶37

Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No

Shanker Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanker Lal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Dave Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Rishu Hissaria Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Usha Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan