Smt. Vidya Devi W/O Ram Charan Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13913/2021

Smt. Vidya Devi W/o Ram Charan Yadav, Aged About 60 Years, Ex-Forth Class Employee, Badhir Vidyalay Girls Hostel, Ajmer R/o House No. 192, Panchsheel Nagar, Ganesh Guvadi, Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶7

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Elementary And Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005

¶9

Badhir Bal Vikas Samiti, (Registered Society Under The Rajasthan Societies Registration Act) Through Its Secretary, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.

¶10

Managing Committee, Badhir Vidyalay, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9999/2020

¶14

Om Prakash Sharma S/o Jeewan Lal Sharma, Ex Teacher, Badhir Vidyalay, Ajmer R/o 433/b-48, Vinayak Nagar, St. Stephens School, Panchsheel C Ajmer

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner

¶18

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer

¶19

Principal Secretary, Elementary And Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur 302005

¶20

Badhit Bal Vikaas Samiti, (Registered Society Under The Rajasthan Societies Registration Act) Through Its Secretary

¶21

Managing Committee, Badhir Vidyalay, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its Secretary

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

(2 of 6) [CW-13913/2021]

¶24

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17552/2022

¶25

Shri Shiv Shankar, Aged About 99 Years, Ex- Teacher, Badhir Vidyalay, Ajmer R/o 157 A, 2Nd, Sunder Nagar, Kotda, Ajmer 305004

¶26

----Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Elementary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶29

District Educaiton Officer, Elementary Education Ajmer.

¶30

Principal Secretary, Elementary And Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005

¶31

Badhit Bal Vikas Samiti, (Registered Society Under The Rajasthan Societies Registration Act) Through Its Secretary.

¶32

Managing Committee, Badhir Vidyalay, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harshad Kapoor
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma-AGC with
	Mr. Saumil Sharma

¶35

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶36

Order

¶37

16/09/2025

¶38

An interim application No. 1/2025 has been submitted by the respondent-State seeking clarification of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court.

¶39

Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that while deciding the writ petitions submitted by the petitioners, a common order was passed by this Court on 20.03.2025 directing the State to make the payment of leave encashment as per the

¶40

[CW-13913/2021]

¶41

(3 of 6)

¶42

salary received by the petitioners at the time of their retirement with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶43

Counsel for the respondent-State submits that earlier the petitioners were working on the sanctioned post in the aided institution and subsequently, their services were absorbed in the State Government on 02.09.2013 and 03.09.2013 respectively. Counsel submits that Vidya Devi and Shiv Shankar joined the Government service as per the provisions under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2010’) on 03.09.2013 whereas Om Prakash Sharma joined the same on 02.09.2013 and at the time of their absorption in service, the following Privilege Leaves (for short, ‘PL’) were due in their respective PL account i.e. 252 in the account of Vidya Devi, 206 in the account of Om Prakash Sharma and 203 in the account of Shiv Shankar. Counsel submits that all these persons stood retired in between 2020-2022 i.e. Vidhya Devi retired on 31.08.2021, Om Prakash retired on 29.02.2020 and Shiv Shanker retired on 30.09.2022 and at the time of their retirement, 48 PL was earned by Vidya Devi while remaining in Government service, 83 PL was earned by Om Prakash and Shiv Shankar earned 97 PL in their respective PL accounts. Counsel submits that as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010, no arrears whatsoever shall be paid by the State to any of the employees of Non Government Aided Institution for the period prior to the date of their joining in Government Service after appointment under the Rules of 2010. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get the amount of PL encashment as per the last salary drawn by them at the time of their retirement from the

¶44

[CW-13913/2021]

¶45

(4 of 6)

¶46

Government service, for the P.L. earned by the petitioners during the course of their employment with the aided institution. Counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the amount of PL with interest has been paid to the petitioners in two parts i.e the PL earned by them during the course of their employment with the aided institution and the PL earned by them during the course of their employment with the State Government, hence under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get the amount of PL as per the last salary drawn by them for the period of service rendered by them with the aided institution prior to join the Government service, hence under these circumstances, the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court needs slight modification/clarification. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the respondent-State and submits that on the earlier round of litigation, at the time of disposal of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10995/2015 submitted by the aided institution i.e. Badhit Bal Vikas Samiti and Ors. Vs. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors., the AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent State made a statement that he has obtained instructions from the State and it has been decided that in consonance with the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, the State Government shall pay as per arrears of selection scale and arrears of the 6^th Pay Commission to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a statement was also made by the State counsel in the second round of litigation wherein he stated that so far as the PL encashment of the petitioners are concerned, the same shall also be paid directly in

¶47

(5 of 6) [CW-13913/2021]

¶48

the Executing Court itself at the time of their retirement. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the State is estopped by their action and the State is supposed to make the payment of PL encashment amount at the time of retirement of the petitioners.

¶49

Counsel further submits that even in case, the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners are accepted that the petitioners would be entitled to get the payment of leave encashment in two parts i.e. for the service rendered by the petitioners with the aided institution, and for the period of service rendered by the petitioners with the State, in that eventuality also the petitioners are entitled to get the interest from the date when they had joined the State service.

¶50

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the respective parties and looking to the fact that while deciding the writ petitions, this Court has issued a direction in para 15 that the State Authorities would make the payment of leave encashment to the petitioners as per their salary received by them at the time of their retirement with interest @ 9% per annum. It appears that at the time of arguments, the provisions contained under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 were not brought into the notice of this Court by either side, hence under these circumstances, the aforesaid direction was issued by this Court.

¶51

As per the Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010, the State is not liable to make the payment of arrears which were due with the aided institution for the period prior to the date of joining in the Government Service.

¶52

[CW-13913/2021]

¶53

(6 of 6)

¶54

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioners i.e. Vidya Devi and Shiv Shankar, joined on 03.09.2013 whereas Om Prakash joined on 02.09.2013 and they stood retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2021, 29.02.2020 and 30.09.2022 respectively. This fact is not in dispute that while remaining in service with the aided institution, the petitioner Vidya Devi has earned 252 PL, Om Prakash has earned 206 PL and Shiv Shanker has earned 203 PL and while remaining in Government service, Vidya Devi has earned 48 PL, Om Prakash has earned 83 and Shiv Shanker has earned 97 PL. This fact is also not in dispute that these amounts of PL were not released to the petitioners inspite of their retirement for a considerable time.

¶55

Keeping in view the provisions contained under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010, the order stands clarified/modified, the Staterespondent is directed to make the payment of leave encashment with interest to the petitioners with effect from the date of their joining in the Government service and the remaining part would remain as it is.

¶56

Needless to observe that the modified direction be complied by the State within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶57

Application stands disposed of.

¶58

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶59

Ashu/7-9

Smt. Vidya Devi W/O Ram Charan Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vidya Devi W/O Ram Charan Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar S/O Shri Keshar Dev Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamanram Son of Shri Matadeen Vs State of Rajasthan

C M R S R T C Vs Shri Chunnilal Lrs Andanr

Shishupal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Radheyshyam Chaila Vs the Department of Local Bodies

Shivkant S/O. Shri Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan