Rajasthan High Court
Dayaram S/O Shri Chhote Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 April, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:16960]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5362/2024
1. Dayaram S/o Shri Chhote Lal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Bhandaur Khurd, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Retired
On 30.6.2021 From The Post Of Lineman-Ii, O/o Of Aen
(O And M) Jpd Ucchain, Bharatpur.
2. Kanta Kishore S/o Shri Kali Charan Verma, Aged About 68
Years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Near Devi Ji Ka Mandir, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Retired On 30.6.2016 From The
Post Of Helper-I, O/o Of Aen (A-Iii) Jvvnl, Bharatpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Cum
Managing Director.
3. The Secretary (Admn.), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Secretary (Pension), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Jaipur.
5. Zonal Chief Engineer, (Bharatpur Division) Jaipur Discom,
Bharatpur.
6. Accounts Officer (O And M), Jaipur Discom, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
7. The Superintending Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
8. The Executive Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with
Ms. Kinjal Surana
Mr. Aditya Sharma for
Mr. Satish Khandal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
09/04/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue
involved in the present matter is no more res integra in view of
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh
[2024:RJ-JP:16960] (2 of 3) [CW-5362/2024]
Chander Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2800/2021; decided on 17.10.2023). It is
further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, the
order of the Division Bench has also been followed by Co-ordinate
Bench in the case of Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19121/2023; decided on
07.12.2023).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
fact that the issue, as raised in the present writ petition, is similar
to Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra). However, it is contended
that the petitioners have approached the Court at a belated stage.
3. Heard.
4. The fact that the issue involved is covered by Division Bench
of this Court in case of Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra)
remains undisputed. The contention that the petitioner has
approached the Court with a little delay is of no relevancy in the
facts and circumstances as matters of salary and pension have a
recurring cause of action, as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar
Municipal Corporation: 2022 (4) SLR 862 (SC).
5. In the case of Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra), Division
Bench of this Court inter-alia while referring to orders passed in
Union of India & Ors. vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5445/2022; decided on 07.08.2023) & the
Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs.
Ram Karan Bhakar & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4139/2022) as well as judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
[2024:RJ-JP:16960] (3 of 3) [CW-5362/2024]
in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.
C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.: 2023 SCC OnlineSC 401 has
passed the following directions:-
"It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
Special Leave Petition (C) No.3420/2023 and Special
Leave Petition (C) No.1001/2023 have also been dis-
posed off on 19.05.2023. A copy of orders dated
11.04.2023 and 19.05.2023 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court have also been placed on record.
Therefore, the present petitions are also disposed off
on the same terms with direction to the respondents
to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass ap-
propriate orders and other consequential benefits as
per their entitlement. Whatever amount is found
payable be also released within a period of one month.
Accordingly, the present petitions are dis-posed of."
6. In light of the subsequent developments and the change in
legal position, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a detailed
representation before the concerned authority within a period of
10 days, which shall be adjudicated upon by the said authority
within a further period of 60 days, after having effectuated
compliance with the principles of natural justice and also, the law
applicable.
7. In light of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
NEERU/78
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
