N.R.S. Lodha vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1697 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16215/2018

N.R.S. Lodha S/o Shri Somitra Singh Lodha, Aged About 76 Years, 170, Bhopulpura Road Number-2, Udaipur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education (Group-Iv), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology (Mpuat), Udaipur Through Its Registrar

3. Registrar, Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology (Mpuat), Udaipur

4. Director Extension, Directorate Of Extension Education, Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology (Mpuat), Udaipur

5. Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology (Mpuat), Udaipur

6. The Treasury Officer, Maharana Pratap University Of Agriculture And Technology (Mpuat), Udaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. S. Bhati (through VC). For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia (through VC).

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/02/2022

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

controversy in question has been decided in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 10248/2021 ; Shrikrishna Chaturvedi v. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 04.01.2022, relying upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

(2 of 2) [CW-16215/2018]

Rajasthan v. A. N. Mathur & Ors. ; Civil Appeal No.

8469/2013 decided on 23.09.2013.

In Shrikrishna Chaturvedi's case (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court held as under:-

"In view of the above discussion, as apparently the cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of A.N. Mathur (supra) and doesn't fall within exception provided in the said judgment, inasmuch as, the petitioners by re-opting for pensionary benefits instead of CPF under the Resolution dated 07.12.2000, have reiterated the option of CPF exercised by them pursuant to notification dated 17.08.1991."

In view of the above observations, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall also be

governed by the directions as given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of A. N. Mathur (supra) wherein, directions have been given

not to raise any demand from any employee on account of

quashing of their option.

(REKHA BORANA),J 78-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)