Phool Mohammad vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2735 Raj

[2023/RJJD/008824]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4267/2023

Phool Mohammad S/o Late Shri Hanif Mohammad, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Tehsil Bhakhra, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar.

3. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

05/04/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

"i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of revision of pay to the petitioner under the Revised Pay Scale Rules 2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2018 with all consequential benefits including the revision of pensionary benefits and the remarks dated 13.03.2023 (Annex.05) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to grant arrears with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the same became due till the date of payment."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision

of pay of the petitioner was to be made effective from 01.01.2016

[2023/RJJD/008824] (2 of 3) [CW-4267/2023]

as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2017, however, before giving

the benefit of the revision of pay to the petitioner, the petitioner

was found involved in a criminal case in pursuance of the First

Information Report registered on 04.02.2016. He further submits

that in the identical matter being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4691/2022 "Vinod Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors." decided on 09.11.2022, this Court has taken a view that

if no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner

and on the date when the revision of pay was admissible to the

petitioner, the same cannot be denied on account of the criminal

proceedings which are lodged after that date. He, therefore, prays

that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the respondents

by way of filing a representation in the light of the judgment

rendered by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra).

Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, the present

writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that

if the petitioner prefers a representation, the same shall be

considered and decided by them within a period of eight weeks

from the date of its receipt, strictly within the four corners of the

provisions of law. While deciding the representation, the

respondents shall also consider the judgment of this Court

rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Meena (supra).

The present order is being passed to expedite the finalization

of the claim of the petitioner by the respondent-authorities and

the same may not be treated as a direction to the authorities to

grant same relief as has been granted in the case of Vinod Kumar

Meena (supra) and the authorities are directed to apply their mind

[2023/RJJD/008824] (3 of 3) [CW-4267/2023]

independently taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the present case in accordance with law.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 70-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)