Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sampi vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6703/2021
Smt. Sampi W/o Hurjee, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village- Post-
Bhapore, Tehsil- Banswara, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water
Resources Department, Rajasthan Indira Gandhi Nahar
Mandal Bhawan, Jaipur.
2. The Executive Engineer, Mahi Dam Division-First, Mahi
Project, Banswara.
3. The Executive Engineer, Mahi Rehabilitation And Survey
Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.
4. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Udaipur.
5. The Assistant Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare,
Regional Office, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.A.Siddiqui.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat.
Mr. Ravi Panwar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
30/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on
19/4/2021 seeking enforcement of the order dated 15/9/2021
(Annex.6) and grant the benefit of revision of pension and other
admissible arrears along with interest @ 12% p.a.
It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the facts in the present case are similar to that of the bunch
of writ petitions led by Laxman vs. State of Rajathan & Ors. :
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4535/2021 in relation to the award
(2 of 3) [CW-6703/2021]
dated 22/3/1999 passed by the Labour court, Udaipur and action
of the respondents in not complying with the same on account of
the purported agreement (Annex.R/1) executed between the
Labour Union and the Chief Engineer despite the fact that award
had been upheld by a learned Single Judge with slight
modification, which judgment was upheld by the Division Bench
and SLP against the same was dismissed.
Further submissions have been made that the petitioner was
serving as Coolie with the respondents and retired from service
after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2009 and is
in receipt of pension. By office order dated 15/9/20211 (Annex.6),
the Executive Engieneer, Dam Section - First, Mahi Project,
Banswara, declared her semi-permanent w.e.f. 1/1/1982 and
permanent w.e.f. 1/1/1990 and she had been regularized w.e.f.
1/4/1994. However, the benefits arising from the said order have
not been accorded to the petitioner and she is still receiving less
pension.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents,
wherein, without referring to the averments made in the petition
regarding passing of the order dated 15/9/2011 (Annex.6), a
standard reply has been given as given in the case of Laxman
(supra).
In the case of Laxman (supra), this Court has inter alia
passed the following directions while accepting the writ petitions
on 30/3/2022 (today):
"Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed. The petitioners are entitled
for the benefits of their continuity in service in terms
of the Award dated 22/3/1999 from the date of their
respective initial date of appointment as indicated in
Annex.5 to the writ petition and as indicated
(3 of 3) [CW-6703/2021]
hereinbefore. The action of the respondents in
granting benefits from the alleged date of
reinstatement i.e. 1/8/2000 by order dated
29/8/2005 (Annex.5) is quashed. The petitioners
would be entitled to semi-permanent and permanent
status from the date of their initial appointment along
with the benefit of selection grade on completion of
9, 18 and 27 years of service in accordance with law,
which would also be reflected in their entitlement to
salary and/or pension. After calculating all the
benefits available to the petitioners based on the
above directions, the petitioners would be entitled to
the actual monetary benefits w.e.f. three years prior
to filing of the respective writ petitions.
The entire exercise be done by the respondents
within a period of six weeks and the arrears of
monetary benefits be accorded to the petitioners
within a period of four weeks thereafter and continue
to pay the benefits to the petitioners in accordance
with law.
No order as to costs."
Consequently, though the petitioner has sought enforcement
of the order dated 15/9/20211, in the circumstances of the case,
which are similar to the case of Laxman (supra), keeping parity
with all the similarly situated petitioners, the petitioner would be
entitled to the similar relief as granted in the case of Laxman
(supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
baweja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
