Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sher Mohammed Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41781) on 2 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41781]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18692/2023
1. Sher Mohammed Khan S/o Shri Rahamat Khan, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o Vpo Jharod, Via Maulasar, Didwana,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Shiv Dayal Sharma S/o Shri Chhote Lal Sharma, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Malokhar, Bhuleri, Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Shri Kapoor Chand, Aged About 66
Years, R/o 100, South West Block, Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Bhagwan Sahai Meena S/o Shri Dev Baksh Meena, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Out Side Delhi Gate, Mohalla Khass,
Behind Khass School, Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Niranjan Lal Verma S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 66
Years, R/o 2/75, Scheme No. 10, Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Maharaj Singh S/o Shri Shyoram Singh, Aged About 68
Years, R/o 08, Opposite Jaipaltan, Hardev Vihar, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
7. Madhu Jain W/o Shri Mahesh Chand Jain, Aged About 64
Years, R/o C-212, Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
8. Pooran Chand Sharma S/o Shri Prabhati Lal, Aged About
64 Years, R/o 648/41, Gali No. 4, Bihari Ganj, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
9. Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Ram Charan Sharma,
Aged About 66 Years, R/o 2/179, Housing Board, Dholpur,
Rajasthan.
10. Om Prakash Gaur S/o Shri Devi Lal, Aged About 74 Years,
R/o 218, Dhani Sher Singh, Tehla, Tehsil Riyanbadi,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
11. Jhamku Devi W/o Late Shri Bhagiratha Ram Vishnoi, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o Vpo Vadabhadavi, Panchayat Samiti
Bhinmal, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
12. Prakash Chand Meharda S/o Shri Banshi Lal Meharda,
Aged About 67 Years, R/o Khan Mohalla, Kuchaman City,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
13. Kamal Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Pareek Colony, Kuchaman City,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 04/12/2023 at 08:43:44 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41781] (2 of 4) [CW-18692/2023]
14. Kartar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Magan Singh Rathore,
Aged About 65 Years, R/o Housing Board, Ajmer Road,
Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
15. Nathu Ram Babal S/o Shri Mana Ram Babal, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Village Pyawan, Post Khunkhuna Station,
Didwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
16. Siya Ram Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o New Brahampuri, Mertacity, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
17. Ramchandra Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh Rathore, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o 950/51, Pratap Nagar, Near Poultry
Farm Lohakhan, District Ajmer Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Govt Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Director (Administration), Department Of Medical And
Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
6. The Director, Directorate Of Pension Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Personnel And Training, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur ,rajasthan.
8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
9. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan.
10. The Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 04/12/2023 at 08:43:44 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41781] (3 of 4) [CW-18692/2023]
11. The District Collector, Alwar, Rajasthan.
12. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/12/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment dated 21.07.2023 of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered
in batch of writ petition led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.21/2020 (Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The
operative part of the said order reproduced as under :-
"41. Hence, looking to the binding effect of above
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.P.
Mundinamani(supra) and All India Judges
Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would
be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on
1st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length
of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to
get notional payment on 1 st July, notwithstanding their
superannuation on 30th June.
42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations
made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional
increment to the petitioners. The petitioners' pension
would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be
issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the
petitioners within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
43. With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions
stand disposed of.
44. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if
any) also stand disposed of".
[2023:RJ-JD:41781] (4 of 4) [CW-18692/2023]
2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may
be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
competent authorities for redressal of their grievances.
3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the
competent authorities of the department and the competent
authorities of the department are directed to decide the same
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Vijay Singh (supra).
4. 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
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
c-1-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
