Smt. Manohar Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6479 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27287] (1 of 2) [CW-7245/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7245/2022

Smt. Manohar Kanwar W/o Late Sh. Tej Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Aantroli Kalla, Tehsil Degana, Distt. Nagaur Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Jaipur.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Expenditure Iii Division Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bikaner.

4. The Chief Engineer, Indra Gandhi Nehar Pariyojna (Ignp) Bikaner.

5. The Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

28/08/2023

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in

questions rests decided vide judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.125/2018 (Prahlad Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matters.

In view of the ratio as laid down in Prahlad Singh's case

(supra), the present writ petition is also allowed.

It is directed that the petitioner shall be fixed in pay scale

No.3 from the date similarly situated persons were accorded the

[2023:RJ-JD:27287] (2 of 2) [CW-7245/2022]

same in compliance of direction of this Court and she would be

entitled to all the consequential benefits on account of fixing her in

the pay scale No.3. Needful may be done by the respondents

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the

copy of the present order.

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 239-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)