HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5113/2021

1.

Gaje Singh Devra S/o Hamer Singh Devra, Aged About 43

Years, R/o Village - Debari, Post - Debari, Tehsil Girwa,

District Udaipur.

2.

Arvind Kumar Qchouhan S/o Satya Narayan Chouhan,

Aged About 41 Years, R/o Kalyan Colony, Kekri Nagar,

Ajmer.

3.

Vijay Kumar Joshi S/o Manshanker Joshi, Aged About 42

Years, R/o Vpo Padardi Badi, Tehsil Sagwada, District

Dungarpur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The

Government, Establishment (K-2) Department, Jaipur.

2.

The Secretary Education (Grade - Iii) Department,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

3.

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4.

The District Education Officer, Secondary - I, Udaipur.

5.

The District Education Officer, Secondary - Ii, Udaipur.

6.

The District Education Officer, Elementary, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Hinglaj Dan Charan.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vishal Jangid.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

05/03/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment of this Court in Hanwant Singh Dewal vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.8593/2020 decided on 01.12.2020

(Annex.3 to CW No.13462/2021), wherein similarly placed

(2 of 3)

[CW-5113/2021]

petitioners, who were accorded appointment vide order dated

01.12.2020 (Annex.2) alongwith the petitioners, have been

granted relief as claimed by the petitioners in the present writ

petition and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to similar relief.

Further submissions have been made that subsequent to the

said judgment in the case of Hanwant Singh Dewal (supra),

further orders qua similarly placed persons/petitioners have been

passed in the cases of Badami Lal Jain & Anr. vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.1436/2021 decided on 03.02.2021

and Sidharth Ojha & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

SBCWP No.860/2021 decided on 15.01.2021 and therefore, the

petitioners are entitled to similar relief, as has been granted in the

case of Badami Lal Jain and Sidharth Ojha (supra).

It is further submitted that this Court while referring to the

judgment in Durga Ram Jat vs. State of Rajasthan : SBCWP

No.9695/2014, decided on 08.10.2015 granted the relief to the

petitioners therein. It is further submitted that the orders passed

in the case of Hanwant Singh Dewal, Badami Lal Jain and Sidharth

Ojha (supra) have already been implemented by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

there is specific stipulation in the order of the appointment

(Annex.2) regarding applicability of the Rajasthan Civil Service

(Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005 (Rules of 2005) and as such

the petitioners are not entitled for the relief prayed.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the respondents.

In the case of Durga Ram Jat (supra), pursuant to Rules of

2005 and the fact that appointment was made after the Rules

came into force stipulation was made in the order, which it was

(3 of 3)

[CW-5113/2021]

found by the Court was not justified and therefore, directions as

contained therein were issued, therefore, merely on account of

stipulation made in the order of appointment (Annex.2) wouldn't

be a distinguishing feature qua the judgment in the case of Durga

Ram Jat, as followed in the cases of Hanwant Singh Dwal, Badami

Lal Jain and Sidharth Ojha (supra).

Further, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners with

reference to order (Annex.4), the respondents have already

implemented the orders passed in the case of Hanwant Singh

Dwal, Badami Lal Jain and Sidharth Ojha (supra) qua the persons

identically situated to the petitioners and, therefore, there is no

reason to deny the above relief to the petitioners.

In v