LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-116

SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 23, 2019
SAROJ DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia with the prayer that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules of 2008') be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the respondents be directed to grant benefit of relaxation, as enumerated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008 to the petitioners and they be granted annual grade increment from the date, on which similarly situated persons have been granted, i.e., from 01.07.2010.

(2.) During the course of arguments, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 on peculiar facts of this case, provided the State Government is directed to consider petitioners' case for grant of one time relaxation to them.

(3.) Selection of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers was made with the Primary Teachers. Candidates of both the categories appeared in the common written examination and participated in process of selection. Common merit list was prepared, but the appointments were given on the basis of qualification/eligibility of the candidates. Appointments of the Primary Teachers were made on 24.09.2007, but the State Government delayed appointments of the petitioners as Upper Primary Teachers and eventually their appointment orders were issued on 01.01.2008. In between, State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2008 promulgated Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008. According to Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008, batch of the candidates appointed on the post of Primary Teachers received increment on 01.07.2010 since they completed one year probation period after their appointment before the applicability of the aforesaid notification, but in the case of petitioners, since their appointment was delayed, they could not complete their probation and their increment would be delayed by one year and would be payable on 01.07.2011.