Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1108 (RAJ)

Saroj Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

2002-05-31

M.K.CALLA, SHASHI KANT SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the sole ground of delay. 2. The petitioner had come with the case that she had passed the Higher Secondary Examination from Punjab University as regular student of Govt. Higher Secondary School and successfully completed two years Junior Basic Teacher Course (J.B.T.C.) at ASD High & J.B.T. Institute, Narnol, in the year 1969 with IInd Division. She was appointed vide order dated 5.11.1973 as Teacher Gr. III in the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 by Block Development Officer Behrod. This appointment was later on confirmed. In the year 1978, during the course of inspection of the record of the Panchayat Samiti, Behrod, the Accountant General raised an audit objection that until the qualification of J.B.T.C. is recognised by the State Government of Rajasthan the teachers like the petitioner could not be treated as trained teachers and therefore, the grade increments which have been granted to them are irregular and it was found that certain amount was paid to them in excess, and hence a sum of Rs. 2457.50 was sought to be recovered from the petitioner vide order dated 13.11.78 and the Block Development Officer recovered the said amount and her basic pay was also reduced. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1985, 18 similarly situated teachers had filed appeals against identical orders of recovery before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter the order dated 2.12.87 was duly circulated by the Director Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaner, vide order dated 9.12.87 whereby it was made clear that the teachers possessing the qualification of J.B.T.C. from Haryana University will be treated as trained teachers from the date of their appointment & will be allowed the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 with other admissible allowance. 4. The petitioner therefore, filed representations copies of which have been annexed with the petition as Annexures No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Finally, the petitioner gave a notice for demand of justice vide Annexure-11 but to no avail and no reply. She then preferred the petition before this Court which was rejected on the ground of delay on 12.9.1996 and that order has been made the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 5. Finally, the petitioner gave a notice for demand of justice vide Annexure-11 but to no avail and no reply. She then preferred the petition before this Court which was rejected on the ground of delay on 12.9.1996 and that order has been made the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 5. We have considered the matter and find that it was a case only with regard to the recovery on the question that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not recognised. In identical cases such qualifications were held to be sufficient by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the orders of recovery passed by the Government in other cases were set aside by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and it is not in dispute before us that the case of the present petitioner was exactly identical to the case in which the orders of recovery were set aside by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. It has also not been controverted that the petitioner had made certain representations and had also gave the notice for demand of justice, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had allowed the time to lapse by his inaction and on that account the position of the other side had undergone a change to its prejudice-more particularly when the controversy remained subjudice in other identical cases. Therefore, even if, it is a case of delay, it is certainly not a case of laches and so far as the delay is concerned, that stand explained and it is not a case in which the delay should defeat the claim. 6. In our opinion, it was not a matter which could be dismissed on the sole ground of delay. The identical orders passed by the Tribunal had been carried out by the Government and no recovery has been made from other similarly situated teachers. 7. In this view of the matter, we find that the petitioner has a case and the order dated 13.11.1978 which had been passed against her deserves to be quashed and set aside which we hereby do and direct that amount recovered from the petitioner under this order dated 13.11.78 be returned to her in the same terms as it was returned to the other teachers in whose cases,. the orders were quashed by the Tribunal and for that purpose, the petitioner 'shall be treated as a trained and qualified teacher Gr. III for the purpose of getting the pay scale of Rs. 110-230 with all others and further consequential benefits in the matter of pay scales from time to time and the fixation etc. The orders in this regard shall be passed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents.The appeal is allowed, consequently the writ stands allowed in the terms as aforesaid. Costs made easy.Spl. Appeal Allowed. *******