Ajeet Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 61 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ajeet Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 January, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:263]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19592/2023

Ajeet Singh S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Behind Gurudwara, Village Gurusar, Po Kohala,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
1.       The       State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through        The      Secretary,
         Department            Of     Agricultural         Marketing,        Secretariat,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The       Director,        Agricultural          Marketing       Department,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       The Regional Deputy Director, Agricultural Marketing
         Department Division Hanumangarh, Hanumangarh.
4.       The       Secretary,        Krishi      Upaj      Mandi       Samiti     (Special
         Category), Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
5.       The Pension Payment Authority, Agricultural Marketing
         Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. Jitender Singh.
For Respondent(s)               :     --


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

03/01/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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

[2024:RJ-JD:263] (2 of 2) [CW-19592/2023]

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".

2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be

permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent

authorities for redressal of his grievances.

3. 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).

4. 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 48-AbhishekK/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)