STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NANDBALA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lawyers are abstaining from work and are not appearing before the Court, thus, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Since all these writ petitions arise out of the common impugned order dtd. 3/9/2021 and are having common question of law and similar facts, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

(3.) For proper adjudication of the case, the facts are being extracted from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 219/2023. Brief facts of the case are that being eligible and having requisite qualification prescribed under Rule 11 and the Schedule attached to the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Rules, 1959, respondent- Smt. Nandbala Joshi was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III in the Education Department. Thereafter, the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dungarpur passed orders granting her I, II and III Selection Scales on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service respectively and also extended the benefit of fixation of pay under the provision of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 as per recommendation of Seventh Pay Commission. RespondentSmt. Nandbala Joshi was continuing to receive the benefits extended by the petitioners, however, all of a sudden, vide order dtd. 9/7/2018, the respondent No.2- District Education Officer, Secondary Education instructed all the Heads of the offices to effect the recovery of the amount from the salary of the respondent which was paid to her on completion of 27 years of service and also to recover the monetary benefits extended to her by revision of pay under the Rules of 2017. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 9/7/2018 passed by District Education Officer, Secondary Education, respondent- Smt. Nandbala Joshi preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide its order dtd. 3/9/2021, while relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the order dtd. 9/7/2018 issued by the petitioner-State. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 3/9/2021, the petitioner- State has preferred these writ petitions.