Employees appointed on a regular basis on probation are entitled to salary for summer vacation and the date of increment from the date of joining.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek v. The State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on 20.01.2014, observing thus:-

"It is stated that petitioner was appointed on regular basis on the post of Teacher vide order dated 24.01.1992. After joining on 28.01.1992, petitioner was entitled for benefit of service and salary for summer vacation. Respondents denied aforesaid benefit and increment was shifted to the month of March despite of joining of petitioner in the month of January. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to pay salary of summer vacation and also the date of increment be made to January, 1993.

The officer-in-charge of the respondents could not justify the action of the respondents, inasmuch as Circular dated 28.07.2003 clarified that if employee has been appointed on regular basis on probation then he would be entitled for salary of summer vacation even if appointment is after 31 st December. No justification is given by the s for denial of benefit of increment from January other than erroneously correlating it with the benefit of selection scale and thereby, shifting it by 48 days. I find the action of respondents is illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of salary of summer vacation as he is covered by the Circular. The petitioner should be given increment counting his service from the date of joining and not by shifting it to the month of March.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and consequential benefit would be given to the petitioner as referred above. He would be entitled to other benefits based on appointment order dated 24.01.1992 and his joining on 28.01.1992, thus benefit of selection scale would also be determined."

2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if their representation (which they would be filing within two weeks from today) is decided in the backdrop of the order dated 20.01.2014 rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra).

3. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation before the respondents ventilating all their grievances.

4. In case such a representation is filed within two weeks from today, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with a certified copy of the order instant.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.