Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Noor Mohammed Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40983) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40983]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16405/2024
1. Noor Mohammed Khan S/o Kanwar Ali Khan, Aged About
72 Years, R/o C-27, Kumbha Nagar, Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Ram Dayal Soni S/o Mohan Lal Soni, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Road No. 2, Pipli Chauraha, Nai Abadi,
Asnawar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
3. Chandra Kishore Saxena, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 1-J-
29, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan.
4. Indraj Singh Siradhna, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Ward
No. 17, Dhani Siradhna, Babai, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
5. Kalu Lal Meena S/o Bhawani Lal, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Borkhedi, Baori Khera, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
6. Kishan Lal S/o Bhawani Das, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Gali No. 9-A, House No. 13, Saraswati Colony, Baran
Road, Kota, Rajasthan.
7. Rajender Kumar Sharma S/o Gyanswaroop Sharma, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Rain Basera Ke Samne, Nayapura
Khai Road, Kota, Rajasthan.
8. Surender Kumar S/o Vidhyadhar Singh, Aged About 64
Years, R/o Hetamsar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Director, Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Near Area, Civil
Lines Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
6. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 07/10/2024 at 09:36:34 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:40983] (2 of 3) [CW-16405/2024]
7. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.
8. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
9. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
10. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioners
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
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 on1st
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 caseof
the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations
made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional
[2024:RJ-JD:40983] (3 of 3) [CW-16405/2024]
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 petitioners may
be permitted to file a detailed representation before the
competent authorities for redressal of their grievances.
3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners 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
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
58-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
