Sohan Lal Sain (Deceased) vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 357 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 112/2019

1.     Sohan Lal Sain (Deceased), R/o Village Khangri, Tehsil
       Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
2.     Vimla W/o Late Sohan Lal Sain, R/o Village Khangri,
       Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
3.     Deendayal S/o Late Sohan Lal Sain, R/o Village Khangri,
       Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
4.     Yogendra Kumar S/o Late Sohan Lal Sain, R/o Village
       Khangri, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
5.     Ramveer Singh S/o Late Sohan Lal Sain, R/o Village
       Khangri, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
       Government, Medical            And Public           Health Department
       Jaipur.
2.     The District Ayurved Officer, Bharatpur.
3.     Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, At Present Posted As District
       Ayurved Officer, Bharatpur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Adhiraj Singh on behalf of Mr. D.S. Raghav through VC For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

17/01/2022 D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.461/2019 & D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 112/2019:-

The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of

the judgment dated 19.04.2018. Submission of the counsel for the

petitioner is that as per Rule 54 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules

(2 of 2) [WRW-112/2019]

the Government servant shall be given full pay and dearness

allowance. He further submits that the Hon'ble Court gave only

25% back wages to Sohan Lal which is on very lower side. In view

of Rule 54(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, he was entitled to

full back wages with consequential reliefs.

On perusal of order dated 19.04.2018 it implies that one

charge-sheet was served for major penalty proceedings. The

disputed question of facts were involved. It is also observed that

the learned Single Judge has noted that disciplinary authority has

taken note of the past conduct of Sohan Lal and has found that

such persons are not entitled to be retained in the service. While

holding in paragraph 14 that "Indeed law does not permit this" on

beneficial and liberal side vide impugned order benefit of 25% was

granted.

In these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that

looking to the narrow scope of intervention in the review

application, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the said application.

The petitioner will be at liberty to move by way of appropriate

remedy before the higher forum if he so wants. The application

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is disposed of accordingly.

The review petition is also dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                                     (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Kamlesh Kumar/N.Gandhi/31









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)