Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vishnu Dutt Goyal Son Of Shri Manohar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:2440)
2024 Latest Caselaw 256 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 256 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Vishnu Dutt Goyal Son Of Shri Manohar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:2440) on 16 January, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:2440]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14609/2023

1.       Vishnu Dutt Goyal Son Of Shri Manohar Lal Goyal, Aged
         About 62 Years, R/o Kans Mohalla, Purani Deeg, District
         Deeg, Rajasthan.
2.       Jaiveer Singh Son Of Shri Kare Singh, Aged About 62
         Years, R/o 94, Vimal Kunj Colony, Agra Road Bharatpur
         Rajasthan.
3.       Roop Singh Jatav Son Of Shri Bhagwat Lal Jatav, Aged
         About 62 Years, R/o Behind Mittal Dal Mill, Bayana Road
         Hindaun City Karauli.
4.       Shri Kshemraj Singh Son Of Late Shri Ravi Kant, Aged
         About 62 Years, R/o House No. 812 Shastri Nagar,
         Dadabari, Kota Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                          Versus
1.       State        Of     Rajasthan,           Through          Secretary    Energy
         Department, Secretariat Jaipur.
2.       Chairman, JVVNL, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.
3.       Managing Director, JVVNL, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar
         Jaipur.
4.       The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur.
5.       Account Officer (Ea), JVVNL Purana Power House Near
         Ram Mandir Banipark Jaipur.
6.       Account Officer, (Pension) JVVNL Purana Power House
         Near Ram Mandir Banipark Jaipur
                                                                       ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18094/2023

1. Vishwambhar Dayal Bansal Son Of Shri Radhey Shyam Bansal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 500, Shanti Nagar, Near Durgapura, Railway Station, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Manmohan Kurmi Son Of Shri Radhe Shyam Bohra, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 91-A, Rk Puram, Kota Near Jain Temple, Kota, Rajasthan.

[2024:RJ-JP:2440] (2 of 4) [CW-14609/2023]

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chairman, JVVNL, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

3. Managing Director, JVVNL, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

4. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

5. Account Officer (Ea) JVVNL, Purana Power House Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur.

6. Account Officer (Pension) JVVNL, Purana Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar
For Respondent(s)             :



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                         Order

16/01/2024

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

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).

[2024:RJ-JP:2440] (3 of 4) [CW-14609/2023]

2. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 and considered.

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 petitioners have

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), Di-

vision 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

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

[2024:RJ-JP:2440] (4 of 4) [CW-14609/2023]

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 view of the joint statement of the learned counsel for

the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this

writ petition on the same terms and with direction to the

respondents to consider the petitioners' claim and pass

appropriate orders in the light of the Division Bench judgment, as

referred to above, within a period of two months.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/174-175

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter