Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:632) on 5 January, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:632]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 100/2024
Poonam Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Jagdamba Colony, Banjakudi Road, Jaitaran, District Pali,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Ground Water, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Chief Engineer, Department Of Ground Water, New
Power House Road, Jodhpur.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Department Of Ground
Water, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
6. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
8. Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
9. Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
05/01/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:632] (2 of 3) [CW-100/2024]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 petitioner may be
permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent
authorities for redressal of his grievances.
[2024:RJ-JD:632] (3 of 3) [CW-100/2024]
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
with liberty to the petitioner 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).
Stay application also 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 petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
392-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
