S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8562/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.S.P.Sharma for Mr.Virendra Dangi for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Sharma for the respondent. Admit. Notices need not be issued as the respondent is represented through it,s counsel. The matter be listed for hearing in due course. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8362/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.Rajendra Arora for the petitioner. Mr.Sumit Rawat for Mr.R.D.Rastogi for the respondents. Admit. Notices need not be issued as the respondents are represented through its' counsel. The matter be listed for hearing in due course. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7033/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.Mahender Tiwari for the petitioner. Mr.Jakir Hussain Addl.G.A for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for further time to seek instructions. Put up after two weeks. (Mohammad Rafiq)J> k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5758/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Dr.Y.C.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Raghav for the respondents. Admit. Learned counsel or the respondents prays for one more opportunity to produce the copies of reports of the first and second medical board and other documents they want to rely. List this matter after two weeks. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5229/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.D.P.Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Dharmendra Pareek for the respondents. Put up for admission on 13.2.2009 along with S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.5141/2002 and S.B.C.W.P No.4784/2001. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5539/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.A.K.Bansal for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Singh Narooka for the respondents. Admit. Notices need not be issued as the respondent s are represented through their counsels. The matter be listed for hearing in due course. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4545/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.V.L.Mathur for the petitioner. Mr.Saugath Roy for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Rule 4 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Pension Regulation 1989 and argued that the competent authority has power to withhold/withdraw the pension or part there of, if the petitioner has committed serious crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to study the said rule and prays for time. The matter be listed after two weeks. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7613/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. None present for the petitioner. Mr.Jakir Hussain Add.G.A for the State. List this matter after 4 weeks by showing the name of Mr.G.C.Gupta as the counsel for the petitioner. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4707/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.Umesh Shringi for the petitioner. Mr.Jakir Hussain Addl.G.A for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to inform this Court about the latest position in the matter. List this matter after two weeks. (Mahammad Rafiq)J. k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4483/2002. 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.Prakash Tatia for the petitioner. Mr.Saugath Roy for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt.Asha Thakur with the prayer that the respondents be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Homeopathic Compounder and they be further directed to pay the regular pay- scale of the Homeopathy Compounder to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits submit that the petitioner was appointed and was paid only consolidated pay of Rs.900/- per month as part time Homeopathic Compounder which was later revised to Rs.1700/-. ..2.. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment for seeking instructions. Today, he has informed to the Court that the petitioner has voluntarily left the service of respondents to settle down in Mumbai. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was not appointed on the sanctioned post and in the absence of minimum qualification, she is even otherwise not entitled to claim the pay scale of the post of Homeopathic Compounder. Without going into the merit of the case, since the petitioner is presently not in the service of the respondents and has voluntarily left the service, relief that has been prayed for cannot be granted. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH,JAIUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6437/2002. Jag Mohan Vs.State of Rajasthan & Others. Date of judgment: 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.M.S.Kachwaha for the petitioner. Mr.Jakir Hussain for the respondents. The only grievance with which this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Jag Mohan Singh is that the third Selection Scale which has become due to him on 21th July, 2000 was illegally withheld by the respondents on account of four penalties vide order dated 21.9.200, 31.3.2001, 14.4.2001 and 9.5.2001 respectively were imposed on him subsequent to the said date. The petitioner Jag Mohan Singh has died on 13.7.2008 and the present petition is being prosecuted by Smt.Raj Kumari widow of deceased Jag Mohan Singh and others. ..2. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition do not deny the fact that the III Selection Scale has become due to the petitioner on 21st July,2000 and that four penalty orders were awarded to him respectively vide order dated 21st September, 2000, 31.3.2001, 14.4.2001 and 09.5.2001, Selection Scale to be granted to the petitioner on 21.7.2000 has been deferred for five years. It would be evident from the above that the selection scale which 'had' otherwise because admissible to the petitioner on 21st July, 2000 was deferred on account of four penalties, which were all minor penalties and one adverse remark in the APAR of the year 1996-97. When there was no penalty order against the petitioner on 21st July,2000, the penalties awarded on subsequent date could not be taken into consideration for denying or deferring III Selection Scale on that ..3.. account. More over, mere one adverse APAR, out of entire span 9 years for which the selection scale was granted to the petitioner, could not be by itself reason enough to deny of such benefit which is entitlement of the petitioner. The action of the respondents in deferring grant of selection scale for 5 years is illegal and the petitioner is held entitled to receive the benefit of selection on 21.7.2000 with all consequential benefits. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is declared entitled to receive the benefit of Section scale on 21st July,2000. Compliance of this judgment be made within three months from the date of the receipt of its copy by the respondents. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. (Mahammad Rafique)J. k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. Seth Ramji Das Modi College for Women, Kota. Vs. Rajasthan Non-Governmetn Education Institutions Tribunal & Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4736/2002. Date of Judgment: 9.2.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq. Mr.Anurag Agrawal for the petitioner. Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Seth Ramji Das Modi College for Woman, Dada Bari, Kota challenging the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur by which the petitioner Institution was directed to pay to respondent No.2 the benefit of D.A, interim relief and pay fixation as also the benefit of revised pay-scales consequent upon the implementation of recommendation made by Vth Pay Commission. Four identical writ petitions filed by the petitioner Institution were decided and ..2.. dismissed by this Court bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3628/2002, 3631/2002, 4478/2002 & 4507/2002 wherein it was held that discontinuance of payment of grant-in- aid to the petitioner Institution was it's own creation. Therefore, if the respondent employee was receiving pay and other allowances at par with the teachers working in the Government School their condition of service which cannot be varied to their disadvantage. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgment by relying the decision of the Supreme Court reported WLC (Raj) U.C 2005 p.670 which on facts is not applicable to the present case. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. k.