MAHESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. RAJASTHAN SHIKSHA KARMI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by petitioner assailing orders dt. 06/07/06 (Ann. 6) and dt. 24/06/06 (Ann. 7) whereby respondents intended to make recovery from them for the period during which they had worked in Shiksha Karmi Board.

(2.) PETITIONER while working in Department of education, was selected as Siksha Sahyogi in rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board and was sent on deputation for a period of one year on the condition that they would get a sum of Rs. 150/per month in addition to their basic pay in terms of R. 29 of R. S. R. , as is evident from order dt. 06/01/01 (Ann. 1) and during appointment on deputation, his pay after grant of higher selection scale admissible in terms of Board's order dt. 24/05/96 and dt. 06/08/96 was accordingly fixed and revised vide order dt. 30/08/01 (Ann. 3 ).

(3.) HOWEVER, petitioner was repatriated to their parent department of Education vide order dt. 03/06/05 and after revising fixation intended counsel for petitioners inter-alia submits that before passing orders impugned, no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioners and the action of respondents is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and that apart, while they were entitled to be fixed in their basic pay in terms of R. 29 of RSR in addition to amount of Rs. 150/- per month as deputation pay, as such respondents are not justified even for making recovery from them. However, no reply to writ petition has been filed by respondents However, Government counsel submits that controversy raised in instant petition has been decided by DB decision of this Court at principal seat Jodhpur in special Appeal (Writ) 208/06 and bunch of others (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramniwas Porwal) on 13/12/07 (Per Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.) (2008 (2)WLC 406) clarifying the position ad infra: however, it may be clarified that because of the provisions made in Note 8 read with Note appended to Rule 6 a Senior teacher drawing pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 prior to 1. 7. 1998 and promoted as Senior Teacher but after 1. 7. 1989 who has not completed 10 years as senior Teacher at the time of commencement of the Act his pay in pay-scale of 650010500 was protected as personal to him, though he would become eligible to such scale under the new rules of 1998 only on completion of 10 years. In this view of the matter, the rights of the respondents even under the aforesaid provision remain intact and unaffected and it could not have any adverse effect on them.