Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 758 (RAJ)

Durgesh Singh Charan v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-12

DINESH MEHTA

body2025
Order : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition, is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jorawar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.555/2005 , decided on 07.11.2006, observing thus: “It is not at all in dispute that the appointment was given to the petitioner by way of direct recruitment as a consequence to regular selection proceedings conducted under the Rules of 1971 by order dated 3.2.1992 and the petitioner joined service in pursuant thereto on 14.2.1992, therefore, he became a substantive employee of Government of Rajasthan on 14.2.2002. The respondents did not allow salary for summer vacations to the petitioner under administrative instructions that prescribes that the persons employed after 31st December of the preceding year shall not be given salary for the summer vacations. However, it does not change nature of appointment of the person so employed. As stated above, the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher Gr.III under the Rules of 1971 by order dated 3.2.1992, therefore, he is required to be treated as a substantive employee from the date he joined service i.e. 14.2.1992. The date of the initial appointment of the petitioner, therefore, is 14.2.1992 and not 1.7.1992 as considered by the respondents. I also do not find any reason to disallow salary to the petitioner for the period of summer vacations in the year 1992, merely on the count that an order of appointment was issued in that year only. The counsel for the State also failed to give any rational in giving salary for summer vacations to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow selection grade to the petitioner by considering14.2.1992 as the date of his initial appointment in government service. The petitioner is also entitled for all other ancillary and consequential benefits including the salary for the period of summer vacations of 1992. No order to costs.” 2. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow selection grade to the petitioner by considering14.2.1992 as the date of his initial appointment in government service. The petitioner is also entitled for all other ancillary and consequential benefits including the salary for the period of summer vacations of 1992. No order to costs.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent- State is directed to address his representation within a time frame in the backdrop of the order dated 07.11.2006 passed in the case of Jorawar Singh (supra), which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. 3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings stand closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating his grievances. 4. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, 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 expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 5. With these observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition as well as stay petition are disposed of. 6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief.