Satyanarayan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9804 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:39218]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18007/2023

1. Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Vpo Lakhni, Via Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

2. Dinesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Plot No. 327, Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, Shakti Vihar, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

3. Babu Lal Yadav S/o Shri Ramdev Yadav, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Vpo Bidara, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Narsi Ram S/o Shri Hemu Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Lamba Ki Dhani, Post Bhopatpura, Via Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

5. Murlidhar Jat S/o Shri Nand Lal Jat, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Vpo Jaje Kalan, Via Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 59, Adarsh Nagar, Near Saini Sabha, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

7. Hardan Singh S/o Shri Sardara Ram Jat, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Vpo Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

8. Mangej Singh Meena S/o Shri Banwari Lal Meena, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

9. Braj Bhooshan Kaushik S/o Shri Shivcharan Kaushik, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 25, Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 11, Behind Koishna Plaza, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

10. Hari Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Atma Ram Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Manshi Vihar Colony, Dabla Road, Buchahera, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

11. Ghanshyam Bansal S/o Shri Sohan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Tejwala Kua, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

12. Vidhyadhar Sharma S/o Hanuman Prasad Sharma, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Mohalla Badabas, Near Kesar Ji Ka Mandir, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

13. Balbir Singh Yadav S/o Shri Harlal Yadav, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Banar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

14. Santosh Kumar Khandelwal S/o Shri Badri Prasad Khandelwal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Mohalla Khandelwal, Pragpura, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JD:39218] (2 of 4) [CW-18007/2023]

15. Bhairoon Singh Yadav S/o Shri Gori Shay, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Bhaloji, Babala Ki Dhani, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

16. Ratipal Singh S/o Shri Dan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Shakti Vihar, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

17. Pooran Mal Bawaria S/o Shri Mamraj Bawaria, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Adarsh Nagar, Mohalla, Buchahera, Kotputli, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

18. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma S/o Jhutha Lal Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village Piplod Narayan Post Devipura, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt.

Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt.

Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Govt.

Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

6. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

7. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.

8. The Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.

9. The District Education Officer, Headquarter Secondary Education, Hanumangarh.

10. The District Education Officer, Headquarter Secondary Education, Jaipur.

11. The District Education Officer, Headquarter Secondary Education, Sikar.

12. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

13. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Singh Pidiyar on behalf of Mr. Sandeep kalwaniya.

For Respondent(s)         :     -





 [2023:RJ-JD:39218]                      (3 of 4)                         [CW-18007/2023]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                        Order

16/11/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment rendered in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.21/2020 "Vijay Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters decided on

21.07.2023 in the following terms:-

"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 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 the certified copy of this order.

43. With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions stand dispose of.

44. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

45. The parties are left free to bear their own costs."

Learned counsel further submits that the controversy has

also been set at rest by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.

Mundinamani & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.2471/2023 affirming

the view taken in the case of Vijay Singh (supra).

[2023:RJ-JD:39218] (4 of 4) [CW-18007/2023]

In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners

seeks liberty to approach the respondents by way of filing a

detailed representation for redressal of their grievances.

Considering the judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh

(supra) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

C.P. Mundinamani (supra), the respondents are directed to

consider the representation of the petitioners and decide the same

in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as well as this Court in the cases of C.P. Mundinamani

(supra) & Vijay Singh (supra), preferably within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

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 36-Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)