Rajasthan High Court
CW/13326/2025 of VIKRAM SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVLAL SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 17 July 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13326/2025 URN: CW / 30059U / 2025 1. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Shivlal Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 269- A , Anand Lok-I, Gajadharpura Mod, Kalwad Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 303706. 2. Dinesh Kumar Mehra S/o Shri Sohan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13326/2025
URN: CW / 30059U / 2025
1.
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Shivlal Singh, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of 269-A, Anand Lok-I, Gajadharpura Mod, Kalwad Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 303706.
2.
Dinesh Kumar Mehra S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 58
Years, R/o D-47, Riico Colony, Behror, District Kotputli- Behrod.
3.
Dalip Singh S/o Shri Ragbir Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village And Post Kayasa, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behrod (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.
Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.
District Education Officer (Secondary), Kotputli Behrod, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Anoop Agarwal
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
17/07/2026
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 Vs. The State of
(2 of 3) [CW-13326/2025] Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition 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 31st 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
(3 of 3) [CW-13326/2025] order dated 20.01.2014 rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek (supra).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in case any representation submitted is by the petitioners then they will consider it in accordance with law.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners’ grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 82/Ashish Kumar