Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Assistant Engineer, Water ... vs Jaggu Ram (2023/Rjjd/013291) on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/013291]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1263/2019
1. Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Regulation, Sub
Division-Shivpur, Head Office- Sri Ganganagar, District-
Sriganganagar.
2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Gang Canal
Regulation Division-Sriganganagar, District-
Sriganganagar.
3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Hanumangarh.
4. Persent Assistant Engineer, Water Resources North Sub-
Division, District- Sriganganagar.
5. Present Executive Engineer, Water Resources North
Division, Sriganganagar, District- Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
Jaggu Ram S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste-
Jat, Permanent R/o Ward No. 6, Sadulsahar, District-
Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani for Ms. Abhilasha
Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain for Mr. Vinay Jain
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/05/2023
1. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has
been decided against the petitioner-State by the judgment dated
30.03.2022, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a
bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
4535/2021 : Laxman Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
[2023/RJJD/013291] (2 of 3) [CW-1263/2019]
2. In the case of Laxman Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., the
Coordinate Bench has held thus:-
"In view thereof, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitions cannot
be thrown out on account of alleged unexplained
delay and laches. However, for balancing the
equities, the actual benefit available to the
petitioners can be restricted for three years from
before the filing of the writ petitions.
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 herein before. 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
[2023/RJJD/013291] (3 of 3) [CW-1263/2019]
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."
3. Ms. Saloni Malpani, learned counsel for the petitioner is not
in a position to controvert the position of facts and law.
4. Following the case of Laxman (supra) the present writ
petition is also dismissed.
5. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
115-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
