Narendra Kumar Bairwa Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to grant all annual increments to the petitioner treating him as regular appointee of the year 1996 and also grant him selection scales on completion of the due period.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 02.02.1996 and he has acquired the qualification of B.Ed in the year 2011. Counsel submits that the respondents have not granted the service benefits to the petitioner with effect from his initial date of appointment but the same has been granted to him with effect from the date when he acquired the degree of B.Ed.

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:7698]

¶18

[CW-1602/2012]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Counsel submits that as per the circular dated 27.07.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of selection scale with effect from his initial date of appointment irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has not acquired the desired qualification.

¶21

Counsel submits that the same benefits have been extended by the respondents to one Prem Prakash Gupta and this fact has also been noted by the Block Primary Education Officer Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh, Alwar, while writing a letter in this regard to the District Education Officer, Alwar on 21.10.2009. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar benefits.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that conditional appointment was granted to the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the effect that within three years of his service, he has to acquire the training of STC. Counsel submits that the petitioner has acquired the desired qualification in the year 2011 and the benefits of regular pay and other benefits have been granted to the petitioner with effect from 2011. Counsel submits that the circular dated 27.07.1995 has been withdrawn by the State-authorities vide order dated 29.03.2003, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as sought for, in the writ petition and the same is liable to the rejected.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the conditional compassionate appointment was granted to the petitioner vide

[2025:RJ-JP:7698]

[CW-1602/2012]

(3 of 3)

order dated 02.02.1996 by which the petitioner was supposed to acquire the desired qualification of STC, within a period of three years of his appointment. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired the desired qualification i.e. B.Ed in the year 2011. This fact is also not is dispute that the benefit of regular pay and other service benefits have been granted to him by the respondents immediately, thereafter. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is “whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale and other service benefits with effect from his date of appointment, in terms of the circular dated 27.07.1995”. The aforesaid circular dated 27.07.1995 has been withdrawn by the State-authorities on 29.03.2003. The validity of the order dated 29.03.2003 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. In absence, thereof, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as sought for, in the instant petition.

¶28

This Court finds no force in the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that inspite of withdrawal of the circular dated 27.07.1995 by the respondents on 29.03.2003, the service benefits were granted to one similarly situated person Prem Prakash Gupta and the said person was also not possessing the desired educational qualification. If any illegality has been caused at the part of the State-authorities, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. This Court finds no merit and substance in the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.

¶29

All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Garima/66

Narendra Kumar Bairwa v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Bairwa v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State Education Departmentors

Devendra Sikhwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj Vs the Presiding Officer Labour Anr.

Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Bija Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Diwatch Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.