Bhairulal Salvi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5835 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1236/2021

Bhairulal Salvi S/o Nathuram Salvi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o - Village Aarni, Tehsil Rashmi, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical Health And Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Director (Admin.), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Chittorgarh.

4. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas,AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

01/03/2021

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/s that

the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of

this Court in Dadam Das Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8309/2012 decided on 20.5.2013.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that

though the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Dadam Das

(supra), however, it is submitted that as the petitioner/s have

raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to them be restricted.

(2 of 2) [CW-1236/2021]

Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8

SCC 648.

In so far as the relief being claimed by the petitioner/s is

concerned, there is no dispute that the same is governed by the

law laid down by this Court in the case of Dadam Das ( supra).

In so far as the plea raised by the respondents is concerned,

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Sharma v. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.11254/2016 decided on

7.10.2016 dealing with another writ petition of identical nature

after noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the

respondents held as under:-

"A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) shows that the same does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, no third party rights have been affected. It pertains to a financial loss which is a continuing injury to the petitioners."

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel

appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to

the petitioner/s cannot be countenanced.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner/s is

allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the selection

grades to the petitioner/s on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of

service in terms of the directions mentioned in the case of Dadam

Das (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

88-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)