Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kamlesh Kumar Harijan S/O Banwari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 March, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writs No. 4946/2019
1. Prabhu Narayan Meena S/o Shree Mool Chand Meena,
Aged About 51 Years, R/o Lalu Ka Bas, (Maheshwara
Kalan), Tehsil And District Dausa, Rajasthan
2. Ram Karan Raigar S/o Ghasi Lal Raigar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village And Post Kunal, Tehsil And District
Dausa, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary
Department Of Personnel And Training Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Primary), Dausa.
5. The District Education Officer (Primary),
Sawaimadhopour.
----Respondents
Connected with D.B. Civil Writs No. 5461/2019
1. Kamlesh Kumar Harijan S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vpo Papurna, Near Hospital, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Lal Chand Verma S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Samota Ka Bas, Post Shahpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM) (2 of 7) [CW-4946/2019] Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Primary), Jhalawar.
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writs No. 5473/2019
1. Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Sher Singh Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Ghiloth, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Sudesh Yadav D/o Jung Bahadur Yadav, W/o Satya Dev Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mundain, Mahendragarh, Harayana.
3. Kanta D/o Vijay Pal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Panthroli, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Inderpal S/o Ramkaran Gurjar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village And Post Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Smt. Padma D/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 3/71, Saket Nagar, Rajasthan Awasan Mandal Colony, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
6. Bhanwari Kumari Yadav D/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav, W/o Indraj Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Modiya Ki Dhani, Post Chhapoli, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Ravi Kumar Pareek S/o Puran Mal Pareek, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Purohito Ki Kothi, Vpo Chirana, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
8. Yatish Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bahaj, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
9. Suman Lata Saini D/o Ganpat Ram Saini, R/o Ward No. 20, Chhawani, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
10. Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/o Daula Ram Yadav, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Daurala, Post Berru, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM)(3 of 7) [CW-4946/2019]
11. Virender Singh S/o Kashi Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Santore, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
12. Suresh Kumar S/o Rohitashaw, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Santor, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
13. Murari Lal Yadav S/o Gyarsi Lal Yadav, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Amarpura, Post Nathawala, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Babu Lal Yadav S/o Cheetar Mal Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chak Manoharpur, Post Devkaharwara, Via Manoharpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Shiv Prakash Lunia S/o Satya Narayan Lunia, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Bye Gopi Nath Temple, Vpo Bandanwara, Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
16. Dilip Singh Rathore S/o Ganga Singh Rathore, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Tantoti, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
17. Vandana D/o Sukhdev Chhipa, W/o Anil Kumar Chhipa, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khai Garh, Purani Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
18. Anand Kumar Khinchi S/o Ram Bilas Khinchi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 1254, Dhan Mandi, Khatik Mohalla, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
19. Raveka D/o Mangal Singh, W/o Sunil Kumar Pingolia, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 41, Sidharth Nagar, Dholla Bhata Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
20. Sunita D/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Post Office, Village And Post Tosina, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
21. Mamta Singh D/o Pushkar Singh Ravat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 33/496, Behind Railway Station, Gulabshah Takiya, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
22. Sunita Sharma D/o Bhagwan Sahay Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 149/12, Anar Gali, Hathi Bhata, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
23. Kamlesh Sharma S/o Bhuramal Sharma, R/o Mishra Bhawan, Naya Bazar, Vpo Achrol, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM) (4 of 7) [CW-4946/2019]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary
Department Of Personnel And Training Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer (Primary), Barmer.
5. The District Education Officer (Primary), Karauli.
6. The District Education Officer (Primary), Alwar.
7. The District Education Officer (Primary), Bundi.
8. The District Education Officer (Primary), Nagaur.
9. The District Education Officer (Primary), Ajmer.
10. The District Education Officer (Primary), Sikar.
11. The District Education Officer (Primary), Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia for
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment / Order 27/03/2019 Since the controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is identical, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter alia with the prayer that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM) (5 of 7) [CW-4946/2019] Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008(for short 'the Rules of 2008') be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents be directed to grant benefit of relaxation, as enumerated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008 to the petitioners and they be granted annual grade increment from the date, on which similarly situated persons have been granted, i.e., from 01.07.2010.
During the course of arguments, Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia appearing on behalf of Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 on peculiar facts of this case provided the State Government is directed to consider petitioners' case for grant of one time relaxation to them.
Selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in the common written examination and participated in process of selection. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the Primary Teachers were made on 24.09.2007, but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 01.01.2008. In between, State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Primary Teachers received increment on 01.07.2010 since they completed one year probation period after their appointment (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM) (6 of 7) [CW-4946/2019] before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of petitioners, since their appointment was delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increment would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 01.07.2011.
Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, where the Governor retains the power to relax the rule in the case of undue hardship in any particular case.
Prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a case of hardship, but since the State Government has not examined this matter, we refrain from expressing any further opinion, except requiring the State Government to have the case of the petitioners examined for grant of one time relaxation, so as to consider their case and bring them at par with the Primary Teachers appointed in the same process of selection held in pursuance of same advertisement by granting them one increment, may be notionally, with effect from 01.07.2010 considering that they were actually in service on that date and even prior thereto.
We, therefore, direct the State Government to undertake necessary exercise and pass appropriate order with regard thereto within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this order. It goes without saying that in case grievances of the petitioners are not remedied, the petitioners would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition with the same prayer as made in the present writ petition and also incorporating challenge to the order that may be passed by the State Government.
With the aforesaid direction, writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM)(7 of 7) [CW-4946/2019] Office is directed to place a copy of this order in each connected file.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manish/RS/s-56-58 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 06:12:58 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)