RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present controversy is covered by the order passed by this Court on 7 th August, 2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.10050/2019 (Kusum Kumari Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) along with other connected writ petitions. The order passed by this Court in the case of Kusum Kumari Pareek (supra) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :
"1. The present batch of petitions has been filed by the petitioners who are working as Teacher Grade-III in different schools. The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of regularizing their services which they had rendered earlier and further, the period, spent on probation from initial date of appointment, is sought to be counted in respect of the benefits, which they derived on appointment subsequently on the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners have also prayed for protection of their pay in terms of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that initially the Principal Seat at Jodhpur decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12846/2017 Dhanraj Meena Versus The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected writ petitions vide common order dated 15.01.2018 directed that the benefits were required to be conferred to the candidates who had approached the Court. This Court deems it appropriate to quote the relevant para of the order dated 15.01.2018 passed in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), is reproduced as under:-
"It may be noticed that the reference made to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006, which appears to be incorrect and must be read as Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
The said judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) has been followed in the case of Chandra Kala Saini (supra), which pertains to the same recruitment i.e. recruitment of 2013, wherein, following the judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and quoting the said judgment, it has been observed as under:-
"Learned counsel further urged that instant batch of writ applications be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), for subsequent to adjudication, a notification has also been issued by the State- respondents in consonance with the adjudication in the case aforesaid on 30th October, 2017, carrying out an amendment in Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951. In view of the above; the instant batch of writ applications stands disposed off in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), as extracted herein above. Needless to observe that the State- respondents would ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit permitting the petitioners to join at their respective place of posting, if already not joined, as expeditiously as possible; preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented."
In view of the specific provision i.e. second proviso to Rule 24 of RSR as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and Chandra Kala Saini (supra), the stand taken by the respondents in orders dated 2.9.2015 (Annex.R/1) and 4.12.2017 (Annex.R/2), is without any basis.
In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.
It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.
In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after passing of the judgment in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra), the State Government itself issued a circular dated 09.08.2018 and guidelines have been issued to follow the directions given in the case of Dhanraj Meena (supra).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.