Kailash Chandra @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming undermentioned reliefs:-

“a. The respondent may kindly be directed to grant the regular pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of completion of probation period on the

post of Teacher Grade III in pursuant to the earlier joining dated 19.11.2012 with all consequential benefits.

b. The respondent may kindly be directed to consider the earlier service of the petitioner for the purpose of all service benefits and to count the same

for the purpose for regularization, fixation of pay, increments, transfer service book and employee ID etc with all consequential benefits.

c. The writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be decided in terms of the judgment dated 15.01.2018 rendered in SBCWP No.12846/2017

Dhanraj Meena Vs. State & Ors.

d. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances in the case.

e. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy decided is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Virendra Singh

Verma V/s. State & Ors. Decided on 02.02.2018 following the decision of Dhanraj Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.12846/2017 decided on 15.01.2018), relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“It may be noticed that the reference made to Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2006, which appears to be

incorrect and must be read as Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

The said judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) has been followed in the case of Chandra Kala Saini (supra), which pertains to the

same recruitment i.e. recruitment of 2013, wherein, following the judgment in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra) and quoting the said

judgment, it has been observed as under:-

“Learned counsel further urged that instant batch of writ applications be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Praveen Kumar

Yadav (supra), for subsequent to adjudication, a notification has also been issued by the State-respondents in consonance with the adjudication in the

case aforesaid on 30th October, 2017, carrying out an amendment in Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

In view of the above; the instant batch of writ applications stands disposed off in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav (supra), as extracted herein

above.

Needless to observe that the State-respondents would ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit permitting the petitioners to join at their

respective place of posting, if already not joined, as expeditiously as possible; preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order

is presented.â€​

In view of the specific provision i.e. second proviso to Rule 24 of RSR as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Praveen Kumar Yadav

(supra) and Chandra Kala Saini (supra), the stand taken by the respondents in orders dated 2.9.2015 (Annex.R/1) and 4.12.2017 (Annex.R/2), is

without any basis.

In view thereof, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed, as the petitioners have already been relieved pursuant to the interim orders

passed by this Court, the said interim orders passed by this Court directing to relieve the petitioners are made absolute.

It is further directed that the respondents while dealing with the cases of the petitioners pertaining to their pay fixation etc. would follow the provisions

of Rules 24 and 26 of the RSR as per law.

In cases where the petitioners have been relieved provisionally under the directions of this Court, the Authorities would pass appropriate orders

pertaining to relieving of the petitioners alongwith their last pay certificate (L.P.C.), where they were serving earlier.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had earlier

preferred the writ petition,which was covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Saroj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2490/2015 decided on 22.05.2015)

In response to the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the precedent law of

Dhanraj Meena (supra) cited by him, has dealt with the circular/order dated 02.09.2015, which is also subsequent to the earlier judgment, and in the

present case also, the circular/order dated 02.09.2015, which was subsequent to the judgment in Saroj & Ors. (supra), is under consideration.

In view of above, present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the dictum laid down

in Dhanraj Meena (supra).