Parshan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25357)
2024 Latest Caselaw 4961 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Parshan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:25357) on 5 June, 2024

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2024:RJ-JD:25357]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9811/2024

Parshan Singh S/o Late Inder Singh, Aged About 71 Years, Ward
No.6, Chak 17 Oa, 17 O, Burjwala, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To
         The Government, Department Of Secondary Education,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Secretary To The Government, Department Of Finance
         (Rules), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3.       Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur
4.       Joint       Director,      Pension         And       Pensioners      Welfare
         Department, Regional Office, Bikaner
5.       District     Education       Officer,       Secondary        Education,   Sri
         Ganganagar.
6.       The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School
         No.2X, District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. DS Thind
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Sravan Kumar, AGC



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

(VACATION JUDGE)

Order

05/06/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has superannuated on 30th June and the controversy involved in

the present case is squarely covered by a judgment dated

21.07.2023 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in a

batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition

[2024:RJ-JD:25357] (2 of 3) [CW-9811/2024]

No.21/2020 (Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The

operative part of the said order is 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".

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,

[2024:RJ-JD:25357] (3 of 3) [CW-9811/2024]

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioner would be entitled to the relief.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT (VACATION JUDGE)),J

76-GKaviya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)