Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 October, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:33558] (1 of 3) [CW-15518/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15518/2023
1. Santosh Vyas W/o Shri Suresh Chandra, Aged About 60
Years, R/o 26, Meera Marg, Bherughat, Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Prabhati Ram Yadav, Aged
About 73 Years, R/o 569, Vivek Vihar Sch, No. 10, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
3. Subedar Khan S/o Shri Jahoor Khan, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Chandrakabas, Boontoli, Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Yad Ram Jatav S/o Shri Chauthi Lal, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o Anu Grah Nalia, Hanuman Falan, Baleecha, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Bhanwar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bhabhut Singh
Chouhan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 965, Nearby Nadi,
Lundara Road, Chamundari Ranawatan, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Pension Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Personnel And Training, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
6. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
7. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
8. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
9. The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur,
[2023:RJ-JD:33558] (2 of 3) [CW-15518/2023]
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/10/2023
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".
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may
be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
competent authorities for redressal of their grievances.
[2023:RJ-JD:33558] (3 of 3) [CW-15518/2023]
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
79-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
