Mangla Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9810 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:39219]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16651/2023

1. Mangla Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Poona Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Bera Navada Karmawas Maiyan, Pali, Raj.

2. Bhagirath Bhati S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Aagewa Road Bypass Jaitaran, Pali, Raj.

3. Prabhu Ram Meghwal S/o Chagna Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Gups Naharapura, Pratapgarh Raipur Pali, Raj.

4. Dashrat Singh S/o Chittar Singh, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 26 Kh Karmawas Maliyan, Pali, Raj.

5. Jodha Ram S/o Manga Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Sukh Sadan Subhas Chowk, Bhavi, Jodhpur Raj.

6. Bhanwar Lal Rathore S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 513 Choudharion Ka Baas, Raipur, Marwar Pali, Raj.

7. Mukesh Kumar S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 133 Jhuthan Gali, Raipur Pali, Raj.

8. Karnidan Charan S/o Ram Ratan Charan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Charno Ka Baas, Gyas Balara, Pali, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. The Director, Pension Welfare Department, Jaipur

6. The Deputy Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

7. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

8. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

[2023:RJ-JD:39219] (2 of 3) [CW-16651/2023]

9. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

10. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Deepak Jangid
For Respondent(s)              :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

16/11/2023

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".

[2023:RJ-JD:39219] (3 of 3) [CW-16651/2023]

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

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. All pending applications

also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 10-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)