Punja Katara vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8459 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34699]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9429/2022

Punja Katara D/o Kamji Katara, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Arniya, Post Ghalkiya, Tehsil And District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Nagar Mandal Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Mahi Dam Division- First, Mahi Project, Banswara.

3. The Executive Engineer, Mahi Rehabilitation And Survey Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.

4. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Udaipur.

5. The Assistant Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Regional Office, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan.

Mr. Naved Khan Sindhi.

For Respondent(s) : Ms Abhilasha Kumbhat.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

12/10/2023

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present cases is squarely covered by a

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4535/2021)

and other connected writ petitions, decided on 30.03.2022.

[2023:RJ-JD:34699] (2 of 2) [CW-9429/2022]

For the self same reasons, the present writ petition is also

allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case

of Laxman (supra) which reads as under:-

"In view thereof, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions cannot be thrown out on account of alleged unexplained delay and laches. However, for balancing the equities, the actual benefit available to the petitioners can be restricted for three years from before the filing of the writ petitions.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners are entitled for the benefits of their continuity in service in terms of the Award dated 22/3/1999 from the date of their respective initial date of appointment as indicated in Annex.5 to the writ petition and as indicated hereinbefore. The action of the respondents in granting benefits from the alleged date of reinstatement i.e. 1/8/2000 by order dated 29/8/2005 (Annex.5) is quashed. The petitioners would be entitled to semi- permanent and permanent status from the date of their initial appointment along with the benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in accordance with law, which would also be reflected in their entitlement to salary and/or pension. After calculating all the benefits available to the petitioners based on the above directions, the petitioners would be entitled to the actual monetary benefits w.e.f. three years prior to filing of the respective writ petitions.

The entire exercise be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks and the arrears of monetary benefits be accorded to the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter and continue to pay the benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law."

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 119-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)