Disposed

Om Prakash Gautam v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2025CW/9818/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a retired Head Master seeking ACP benefit due on completion of eight years and 6th Pay Commission fixation. The Court held the penalty of censure operates prospectively, not retrospectively, and directed respondents to grant ACP per order dated 14.06.2011, obtain his option after fixation, and grant pay commission benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to grant ACP benefit per order dated 14.06.2011 and 6th Pay Commission fixation after taking fresh option, within three months.

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9818/2013

¶3

Omprakash Gautam S/o Shri Surajmal Gautam aged about 60 years, R/o 89, Pratap Nagar, Dadabari, Kota.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶7

Deputy Director Secondary Education Kota Range, Kota.

¶8

District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Kota.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Akhil Simlote
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.	Anjum Parveen Salawat for
	Ms.	Namita Parihar,Dy. GC

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

19/02/2025

¶14

By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of Annual Career Progression Scheme (A.C.P.) on completion of 8 years of service on the post of Head Master in pursuance of the order dated 14.06.2011 and a further prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of fixation of 6^th pay commission.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master on 15.10.1997 and he completed eight years of service, thereafter, he was entitled to get the benefit of A.C.P. w.e.f. 31.03.2007. Learned counsel submits

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-9818/2013]

¶17

that even an order was passed in this regard by the Commissioner, Secondary Education on 14.06.2011 but without any justified reason, the aforesaid benefit was not extended to the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) was pending against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was punished with a penalty of censure vide order dated 06.12.2010. Learned counsel submits that it was the sole reason for not extending the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since no option was given by the petitioner for his fixation in 6^th Pay Commission, thus, no order was passed. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The contents of the writ petition indicate that an order was passed by the respondent i.e. Commissioner, Secondary Education for grant of A.C.P. on completion of eight years of service. The benefit of A.C.P. was passed in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2007 vide order dated 14.06.2011. The justification given by the respondents is that the petitioner was punished with the penalty of Censure vide order dated 06.12.2010.

¶20

It is a settled proposition of law that the effect of the punishment/penalty would have its prospective effect and not

¶21

[CW-9818/2013]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

retrospective effect, when the benefit of A.C.P. of the petitioner became due on 31.03.2007. The penalty dated 06.12.2010 will not come in his way as the same would have its prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Hence, under these circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶24

Since the fixation of the petitioner was not done in pursuance of the order dated 14.06.2011, there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to submit his option for grant of benefit of 6^th Pay Commission for pay fixation. Since now the situation has been clarified by this order, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following terms and directions:-

¶25

(I) the respondents are directed to grant benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 14.06.2011.

¶26

(II) the respondents are directed to take option from the petitioner now after making fixation in terms of the order dated 14.06.2011 and pass necessary orders for grant of benefit of 6^th Pay Commission to the petitioner.

¶27

Consequences to follow.

¶28

It is needless to observe that the entire exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Karan/141

Om Prakash Gautam v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Gautam v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Manager Vs Shri Gopal Lal S/O Shri Dhanpal

Dr. Rajendra Singh Gurjar Son of Shri Kashiram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Nitika Choudhary D/O Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Devendra Sikhwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Charan Vs State Home Departmentors