S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9534/2010. Case: State of Rajasthan Vs Narayan Singh. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9534/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shweta Bora and Anil Bissa, Advs. and For Respondents: P.C. Solanki, Adv. |
| Judges | Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | July 07, 2014 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J., (Jodhpur Bench)
-
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:
The petitioners, therefore, pray that an appropriate writ, order or direction, this High Court may be pleased to:-
-
By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari may please be issued and the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2010 (Annex.-3) passed by learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in appeal 22/2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
-
The learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Shweta Bora submitted that the controversy in hand is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan V/s Shankar Lal Parmar reported in 2012 (2) CDR 309 (SC) decided on 30.9.2011 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of grant of selection scale held if the minor penalty by way of censure is imposed on the employee concerned, the grant of selection scale to him may be delayed by one year. The relevant para 24 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:
-
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Division Benches cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside and quashed. However, looking into the controversies which have been there in the State of Rajasthan since 1992, we deem it fit and proper to pass the following orders:
(i) The Appellant-State would not be entitled to recover financial benefits already extended to the employees, pursuant to the first office order issued by Appellant on 25.01.1992.
(ii) The Appellant would not also be entitled to recover any amount which might have been paid to the employees even after issuance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial