Chatur Bhuj vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5841 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25560]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 79/2019

Chatur Bhuj S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Near Bus Stand Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District - Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Secretariat Rajasthan Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu District -

Churu.

3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Taranagar, District -

Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Karwa for Mr. J.S.

                                   Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. H.G. Chanda



                         JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

11/08/2023

1. Mr. Praveen Karwa, learned counsel associate to Mr. Bhaleria,

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue

involved in the present writ petition has been set at rest and

decided in petitioner's favour by a judgment of the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Lala Ram Saini vs. The State

of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

11509/2011).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner

is entitled for all benefits as has been given in the case of Lala

Ram Saini (supra).

[2023:RJ-JD:25560] (2 of 3) [CW-79/2019]

3. Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the respondent - State, on

the other hand submitted that considering the Lala Ram Saini's

case (supra), another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 30.09.2022 passed in the case of Kanhiya Lal vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6469/2020)

has restricted the monetary benefits by observing that the

petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of pay as a

consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for ClassIV

employees. He prayed that the similar order as has been passed in

the case of Kanhiya Lal (supra) be passed in the present writ

petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

considering that in the subsequent decision in the case of Kanhiya

Lal (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has restricted

petitioner's benefits, after noticing the judgment in the case of

Lala Ram Saini (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to restrict

the petitioner's relief as has been done in the case of Kanhiya Lal

(supra).

5. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of while declaring the

petitioner entitled for regularization in services from the date of

initial appointment as Class-IV employee.

6. The respondents shall release the petitioner's pension and

other retiral dues while fixing the petitioner's salary as per

adjudication made in the case of Lala Ram Saini (supra). The

petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of

pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable

for Class-IV employees.

[2023:RJ-JD:25560] (3 of 3) [CW-79/2019]

7. All interlocutory applications so also stay application stand

disposed of accordingly

(DINESH MEHTA),J 287-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)