Salim Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4167 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013826]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3955/2020

Salim Mohammad S/o Shri Abdul Mazid, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Manglia Bab Ramdev Tent House Ke Pas, Shankar Bhawan Ke Pas, Rani Bazar, Bikaner-334001.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Revenue, Colonisation, Sainik Kalyan Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Colonisation, Department, Bikaner Jaipur Rd, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334001.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, through video conferencing

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

05/05/2023

1. The petitioner has raised a grievance that inspite of his

notice for demand of justice dated 13.12.2019, the competent

authority has not considered his case for grant of compassionate

allowance as provided under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the writ

petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to

consider petitioner's notice for demand of justice dated

13.12.2019 in accordance with law.

3. For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioner will be free to file a

fresh representation alongwith certified copy of order instant and

[2023/RJJD/013826] (2 of 2) [CW-3955/2020]

a photocopy of the notice for demand of justice dated 13.12.2019

and judgments (if any), within a period of four weeks from today

before the competent authority of the respondent Departments.

4. In case, such representation is so submitted, the competent

authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass

appropriate order as early as possible, preferably within three

months from receiving the representation.

5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 137-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)