Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahipal Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10800) on 5 March, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10800]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4965/2026
1. Mahipal Yadav S/o Shri Nand Ram, Aged About 56 Years,
R/o 17, Sharan Vatika, Near Tv Tower, Putli Road,
Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan).
2. Mahaveer Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Umrao Singh Yadav,
Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Kansli, Dhani
Ramjiwala, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt Kotputli-Behror
(Rajasthan).
3. Changa Ram S/o Shri Natthu Ram Dhobi, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Vpo Rampur, Tehsil Bansur, Distt Kotputli-
Behror (Rajasthan).
4. Subhash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Sukhram Yadav, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Bhoopseda, Tehsil Bansur, Distt
Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan).
5. Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Matadeen Yadav, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Village Mansapur, Post Rampur, Tehisl
Bansur, Distt Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan).
6. Harchand Jat S/o Shri Chittar Ram Jat, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Village Gudha, Post Rampur, Tehsil Bansur,
Distt Kotputli-Behror (Raj).
7. Roshan Lal Saini S/o Manohar Lal Saini, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Mohalla Puane Panchayat Bhawan Ke Samne
Barod, Tehsil Behror, Distt Kotputli-Behror (Raj).
8. Babu Lal Gaur S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Ward No. 16, Bhawan Nagar Nainwa, Distt Bundi
(Raj).
9. Rinku Jain S/o Shri Moti Lal Jain, Aged About 56 Years, R/
o Shivaji Colony, Ward No. 21, Nainwa, Bundi (Raj.).
10. Shambhu Dayal Nagar S/o Shir Moti Lal Nagar, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o Shivaji Colony, Ward No. 21, Nainwa,
Bundi (Raj.).
11. Prahlad Bairwa S/o Shri Dhannalal Bairwa, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Village Bijalwa, Post Suwaniya, Teh. Nainwa,
Bundi (Raj.).
12. Susheel Kumar Jain S/o Shri Kundan Mal Jain, Aged About
54 Years, R/o Keshav Rai Market, Bansi, Tehsil Nainwa,
Bundi (Raj.).
13. Smt. Suresh Yadav D/o Shri Umrao Singh Yadav, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o 17, Sharan Vatika, Near Tv Tower,
Putli Road, Kotputli, Distt Kotputli-Behror (Raj.).
14. Ajeet Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Sadhu Singh, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Vpo Barod, Tehsil Behror, Distt. Kotputli-
Behror (Raj.).
15. Seema Agarwal D/o Shri Shivnarayan Agarwal, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o Sirotiya Gali, Subhash Chowk,
Nimbahera, Distt Chittorgarh (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 05:44:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10800] (2 of 4) [CW-4965/2026]
16. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal Saini, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Vpo Barod, Tehsil Behror, Distt
Kotputli-Behror (Raj.).
17. Padam Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ratan Lal Jain, Aged About 53
Years, R/o House No. 3, Jain Prakash Colony, Near
Vishwakarma Mandir, Vijay Nagar, Distt. Bewar (Raj.).
18. Gopi Krishan Chandak S/o Shri Ratan Lal Chandak, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o 42, Shiv Nagar, Darbar Colony, Vijay
Nagar, Beawar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Ajmer.
5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Kotputli-
Behror.
6. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Beawar.
7. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Alwar.
8. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bundi.
9. District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Chittorgarh.
10. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bhilwara.
11. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Tonk.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
05/03/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ application, is no
more res-integra in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar Pareek Vs.
The State of Rajasthan : SBCWP No.3534/2009, decided on
20th January, 2014, observing thus:
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 05:44:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10800] (3 of 4) [CW-4965/2026]“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 respondents 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, for the present, the
petitioners would be satisfied if the State-respondents to address
his representation within a time frame in the backdrop of the
order dated 20th January, 2014 in the case of Yogesh Kumar
Pareek (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within
two weeks hereinafter.
3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ
proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address
a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating
their grievances.
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 05:44:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10800] (4 of 4) [CW-4965/2026]
4. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid
period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide
the same by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along
with a certified copy of this order.
5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the
writ application stands disposed off.
6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
35-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 05/03/2026 at 05:44:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/03/2026 at 08:57:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)