Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikumar Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40949) on 28 November, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:40949]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18416/2023
1. Jaikumar Joshi S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Joshi, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Pushkarna, 209-A, Bhartendu Nagar,
Khatipura, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajkumar Purohit S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Purohit,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o 465 Shanti Nagar, Ravindar
School Ke Pass, Prakash School, Hasanpura, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. Jagdish Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Sadhuram, Aged About 66
Years, R/o A-28, Sitaram Puri, Chidda Ki Mori, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Ajij Ahamad S/o Shri Abdul Vajid, Aged About 62 Years,
R/o 24129, Tiba Purbiyan, Mithi Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sayyad Mohammad Ali S/o Shri Sayyad Munnuvarali,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o 721/7, Mohalla Chock Bass,
Badanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Mohammed Rafat Ali S/o Shri Late Rahat Ali, Aged About
62 Years, R/o House No. 1523, Kakori House Ghat Gate,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Ram Babu Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhorilal Sharma, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o Barhamano Ki Dhani, Charan Nadi-Ii,
Nadi Ka Phatak, Murlipura, Jaipur, Near Government
School, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Prabhulal Jat S/o Shri Kalyanmal Jat, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Gomti Nagar, Bambalapulia, Near
Winners School, Krishi Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
9. Suresh Narain Sharma S/o Late Shri Badri Narain
Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vpo Nanwaliya Vaga
Chitora Renewal Technical Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Shri Birdhi Chand Meena, Aged
About 66 Years, R/o Gram Chorvada Post Todabhata
Tehsil Bassi Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Printing And
Stationery Department (Government Press), Jaipur
(Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:41:29 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:40949] (2 of 3) [CW-18416/2023]
Rajasthan.
2. Superintendent, Govt. Central Press, Sardar Patel Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Directorate Of Pension Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur - 302015.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar.
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/11/2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted 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 1st 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 herein above and thereafter
grant notional increment to the petitioners. The
[2023:RJ-JD:40949] (3 of 3) [CW-18416/2023]
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".
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may
be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
competent authorities for redressal of their grievances.
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).
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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
49-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
