Jagat Narayan Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5049 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016795]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6948/2023

1. Jagat Narayan Purohit S/o Shri Narayan Purohit, Aged About 72 Years, R/o B 110, Near B. And T Colony, Sector B 110 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

2. Satyapal Purohit S/o Shri Shivnarayan, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 166, Jawala Vihar, Sumani College Ke Piche, Jodhpur.

3. Tej Veer Singh S/o Shri Sheo Ram Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 41, Vidhut Nagar, Jaipur, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Achala Ram S/o Shri Sarupa Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o B45, Saraswati Nagar, Jodhpur.

5. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Purohit, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 165, Jwala Vihar, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

6. Murari Lal Mathur S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Mathur, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 16/532 Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

7. Atul Sharma S/o Shri Makhan Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o A-3, Adarsh Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

8. Naresh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 290-B, Vinobha Vihar, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

9. Sumer Singh Jodha S/o Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 11-A, Brij Mandal Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

10. Narendra Bhagwani S/o Shri Tiratha Das, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 309, Kesav Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

11. Ramesh Chandra Mehra S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o 22/27, Gulmohar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

12. Madho Singh S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 49, Rajputo Ka Bass, Adsisar, Churu, Rajasthan.

13. Girdhari Lal Godara S/o Shri Ghma Ram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 97-B, Bharat Nagar, W.no.2, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/016795] (2 of 4) [CW-6948/2023]

14. Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kundan Lal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o House No.495, Sector No.3, Near Phed Office, Hanumanarh Town, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

15. Yaduvir Singh S/o Shri Gajapat Singh, Aged About 73 Years, R/o E-178, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

16. Dal Chand S/o Shri Jawala Prasad, Aged About 74 Years, R/o House No. 1026/13, Budhbihari Gali, Nagbai Dhola Bhata Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

17. Sushila Sharma W/o Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o A3, Fateh Tiba, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

18. Bhanwar Lal Tunwal S/o Shri Ram Dev, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Maidasar Bas Didwana, Dist. Nagaur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Transport, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005.

2. The Commissioner, Department Of Rajasthan Transport, 409, Sahakar Marg, Jyothi Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

23/05/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:-

"(a) The record of the case may kindly called.

(b) The respondents may be directed to refix the pay scale of the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors at par

[2023/RJJD/016795] (3 of 4) [CW-6948/2023]

to that with the posts of Mechanics in Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Subordinate Service, Instructor in ITI and Mechanical Foreman in Mines and Geology Department (i.e. pay scale of Rs.) w.e.f. the date of entry in service;

(c) The respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of revised pay scale to the petitioners as per the Notification dated 06.04.2013 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with interest to the tune of 12 percent per annum;

(d) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law;"

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1723/2001 "Vinay Bansal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Anr." decided on 28.05.2015. Learned counsel further submits

that the matter has attained finality as the appeal against the

order dated 28.05.2015 has been affirmed by the Division Bench

vide judgment dated 23.11.2017 and the S.L.P against the

Division Bench judgment dated 23.11.2017 has also been

dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2019. He submits that the

review petition and thereafter curative petition against the order

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.05.2019 too was rejected.

In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief which

was extended by the Department in the case of Vinay Bansal

(supra).

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

[2023/RJJD/016795] (4 of 4) [CW-6948/2023]

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition

merits acceptance and the same is allowed in terms of the order

passed by this Court in the case of Vinay Bansal (supra) on

28.05.2015. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits

accruing to the petitioners within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of the certified copy of this 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

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 264-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)