Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Raj) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Dal Chand Jat and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3063, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248, 3250, 3251, 3388, 3425, 3427, 3482, 3486, 3487, 3503, 3526, 3568, 3586, 3602, 3645, 3667, 3872, 3900, 3944, 4007, 4030, 4058, 4059, 4078, 4079, 4106, 4108, 4123, 4192, 4254, 4305, 4307, 4418, 4423, 4438, 4453, 4547, 4796, 4892, 4965, 4990, 5054, 5155, 5293, 5298, 5980, 6740, 6833, 7498, 7983, 11230 and 12195 of 2019
Decided On : 13-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.P. Saini, Vigyan Shah, Rajaram Choudhary, Akshit Gupta, S.S. Solanki, Pradeep Mathur, Sushila Kalwania, Ashindra Gautam, M.S. Kharra, Rakesh Kumar Saini, R.D. Meena, Sandeep Garssa, Pawan Kumar, Atul Kumar Jain, S.N. Kumawat, Yogendra Singh, T.C. Vyas and Ganesh Chaturvedi
For the Respondent: C.L. Saini, AAG and Bharat Saini, Addl. G.C.

No monetary benefits can be accorded to the petitioners for the period when they were not actually discharging services.

Headnote:
EDUCATION - TEACHER APPOINTMENT - RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES, 1951 - RULE 8 AND 24 - NO MONETARY BENEFITS FOR PROBATION PERIOD - NOTIONAL BENEFITS AND SENIORITY FROM DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS AT SAME OR LESSER MERIT.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, appointed as Teacher Grade-III in 2012-2013 recruitment process, challenged the reduction of their salary and recovery of salary in the garb of an impugned order dated 01.02.2019. They sought notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, from the date their equivalent or lesser merit person in that phase of recruitment was given such benefits.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were entitled to notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, from the stage when the appointment of persons at the same or lesser merit were appointed. However, no monetary benefits where the petitioners not having discharged actual services would be payable.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, from the date their equivalent or lesser merit person in that phase of recruitment was given such benefits? 2. Whether monetary benefits could be paid to the petitioners for the period when they were not actually discharging services?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on previous judgments of the same court, including Hemlata Shrimali (supra), which held that all candidates who are now found eligible and as per existing case law and the judgments of the Apex Court, they have to be treated at par with each other. 2. The court also relied on Rule 8 and 24 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provide for a probation period of two years on fixed remuneration and that the pay of an employee shall not exceed as to pay of the post.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioners the notional benefits, including benefits of seniority and pay fixation from the stage when the appointment of persons at the same or lesser merit were appointed. However, no monetary benefits where the petitioners not having discharged actual services would be payable.

ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In all these matters, identical controversy has been raised, therefore, these petitions are decided by this common order treating the lead case being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3063/2019.

2. The petitioner has claimed for the following relief:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 (Annex. 12) be declared and same be quashed and set aside.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be not to reduce the present salary of the petitioner from Rs. 44,460/- to 23,700/- in pursuance of order dated 01.02.2019.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents not to make any recovery from the salary of the petitioner in the garb of impugned order of recovery dated 01.02.2019.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby respondents may kindly be directed to comply with their own order No. 18/1993 dated 26.11.2018 (Annex. 10) and further not to withdraw the benefits of seniority, notional benefits and other monetary benefits already granted to the petitioner.

(v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. The present dispute arises out of the recruitment process initiated by the Panchayat Raj Department in the year 2012-2013 for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The petitioners being eligible, participated in the selection process in question and were consequentially given appointments. Counsel for the petitioner has shown the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Dal Chand Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 19924/2017 delivered on 13.11.2017, in which the judgment of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. has been followed. Learned counsel has next taken this Court to the judgment of Hemlata Shrimali passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3247/2015 decided on 01.04.2015 and operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

"10. The learned counsels for the petitioners have not disputed the above stated facts mentioned in the reply filed by the respondents. They have also not disputed that as per the decision of the Division Bench which is under challenge before the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for the posts of Teacher Gr.III (Level I and II), they having possessed less than 60% marks in RTET. In the opinion of the Court, the respondents therefore were justified in issuing the press notes calling only those candidates who had secured 60% or more marks in RTET, for verification of the documents.

11. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have prepared the merit lists in question for the appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level I and II) for various subjects, subject to the final outcome of the SLP, which is pending before the Apex Court, and accordingly have also reserved the posts for the candidates falling in above stated category 'Y' and 'Z', at the relevant place in the merit list, securing their rights, if the decision of the Apex Court ultimately is found to be beneficial to them.

12. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further with the selection and appointment of those meritorious candidates, who have secured 60% or more marks in RTET, which appointments will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No. 23178-23182/2013. It is clarified that if the candidates belonging to the 'Y' and 'Z' categories stated hereinabove are found eligible as per the decision of the Apex Court in SLP referred above, they shall be given notional benefits including the benefit of seniority, but not the monetar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document