Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajshree Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41151) on 29 November, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:41151]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15663/2019
1. Rajshree Rathore D/o Shri Om Prakash Rathod, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Near Agarwal School, Soorsagar
Talab, Nagar Nigam Road, Bikaner Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Sarda Pareek W/o Rajesh Pareek, Aged About 40 Years,
Village Antali, Tehsil Aasind District Bhilwara, Rajasthan
3. Smt Munam W/o Ram Kumar Chahar, Aged About 43
Years, Village Bhagsara (Purvi) Post Shobhasar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Smt Kavita Choudhary W/o Shree Ramraj Mukam, Aged
About 38 Years, Post Basni Seja Via Gotan, Tehsil Merta
City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan
5. Raje Ram S/o Tarachand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Bairasar Chota Talab Rajgarh Distt. Churu.
6. Mehboob Khan S/o Kamal Khan Ji, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Panchvati Hanuman Gali, Rajendra Nagar, District
Jalore, Rajasthan.
7. Ranjana Choudhary D/o Shree Shivram Choudhary, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Mukam Post Paldikala Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur.
8. Sukharam Jat S/o Shree Hariram, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Mukam Post Edava, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
9. Parash Kunwar W/o Narendra Singh D/o Shree Narayan
Singh,, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bolakuda, Post
Pilowani, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Education (Grade-Ii), Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
4. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
Sirohi.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 29/11/2023 at 08:44:57 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41151] (2 of 3) [CW-15663/2019]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajender Katariya.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid a/w Mr. Sharwan
Kumar.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
29/11/2023
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 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 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".
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
[2023:RJ-JD:41151] (3 of 3) [CW-15663/2019]
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.
210-/jitender/devraj
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
