Rajasthan High Court
Ramesh Kumar Vyas S/O Shri Gopinath Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3196) on 18 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:3196]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18385/2023
1. Ramesh Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Gopinath Vyas, Aged About
63 Years, R/o House No. 1957, Pandit Shivdan Ji Ka
Rasta, Vijay Lal Chobdar Ki Gali, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur,
Pin-302003, Rajasthan.
2. Rajeshwar Kumawat S/o Shri Surajmal Kumawat, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Railway Station Road, Shiv Colony,
Ward No. 16, Chomu, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Gupta,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o 34 Prem Nagar, Khatipura
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Industrial
Department And Corporate Social Liabilities, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Of Industrial
Department And Corporate Social Liabilities (Csr), Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioner Welfare Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
18/01/2024
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
[2024:RJ-JP:3196] (2 of 3) [CW-18385/2023]
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 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), 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
in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.
[2024:RJ-JP:3196] (3 of 3) [CW-18385/2023]
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 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
ANIL SHARMA /309
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
