Rajasthan High Court
Devishay Bairwa S/O Sukhram Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:3335) on 19 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:3335]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14419/2023
Devishay Bairwa S/o Sukhram Bairwa, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Village Nihalpura (Dhani Basidaryan), Post Bhandari, Tehsil
Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director, Directorate Of
Agriculture Marketing, Ground Floor, Pant Krishi Bhawan,
Vaniki Path, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan At Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioner's
Welfare, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Soni, AAG with
Mr. S.M. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
19/01/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 &
[2024:RJ-JP:3335] (2 of 3) [CW-14419/2023]
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 petitioner has 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 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
in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.
C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.: 2023 SCC Online SC 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-
[2024:RJ-JP:3335] (3 of 3) [CW-14419/2023]
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
DEEPAK/s-433
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
