Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shivram Patidar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:40993]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16252/2024
1. Shivram Patidar S/o Shri Lalji Patidar, Aged About 65
Years, R/o 382, New Circle, Patidar Basti, Post Diwara
Chota, Khargada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
1101868)
2. Smt. Santosh Jain W/o Shri Manahar Lal Mehta, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Salato Ke Mandir Ke Pas,
Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
1233161)
3. Devendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Khemraj Jain, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Punarwas Colony, A216,
Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
1232353).
4. Bhartrihari Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar Behind Sen. School,
Rishadhdeo, District Udaipur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
1235688)
5. Laxmi Lal Jain S/o Shri Devraj Jain, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Jain Mandir Ke Pas, Genji, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1234667)
6. Smt. Kusum Sharma W/o Shri Vinay Sharma, Aged About
71 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Adarsh Nagar Link Road
Police Line Gate Ke Pass, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan
(Ppo No. 581449)
7. Jagdish Lal Choubisa S/o Shri Tej Shankar Choubisa, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o Dhokla Gali, Post Jhadol, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1032836)
8. Smt. Mithilesh Kunwar Chouhan W/o Shri Surendra Singh
Chouhan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Rajput Colony,
Lambaparda, Post Mota Tanda, District Banswara,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1146329)
9. Nathu Lal Katara S/o Shri Dhuliya Katara, Aged About 64
(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:28:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:40993] (2 of 5) [CW-16252/2024]
Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Post Ganoda, District Banswara,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1144115)
10. Nagendra Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Arjun Singh Ji, Aged
About 72 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Mukam- Badi Aathor
Mandir Road Peeth, Post Peeth, Tehsil Simalwara, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 581316)
11. Smt. Jay Kirti Bhatt W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Bhatt, Aged
About 70 Years, R/o House No. 103/c, Badal Mahal Road,
Shastri Colony, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
584165)
12. Abdul Kalam Khan S/o Shri Kamaluddin Khan, Aged About
66 Years, R/o 2 Ch 29, Block Kh, Housing Board, Sector
2, Ward No. 15, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
1080981)
13. Smt. Himangini Sharma W/o Suryakant Sharma, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o Makan N-3/68, Housing Board,
Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1056531)
14. Vaneshwar Nayak S/o Shri Ara Nayak, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Mota Tanda, Ganoda, Banswara,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1148133)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Directorate, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner.
4. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner.
5. The Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Directorate, Udaipur.
6. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
7. Ethe District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
(Downloaded on 10/10/2024 at 09:28:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:40993] (3 of 5) [CW-16252/2024]
Education, Dungarpur.
8. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Banswara.
9. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
Education, Udaipur.
10. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary
Education, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
Ms. Muskan Jangid
Mr. Vivek Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
Mr. Sunil Dutt Chavariya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have superannuated on 30th June and 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
[2024:RJ-JD:40993] (4 of 5) [CW-16252/2024]
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 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; and if the case of the petitioner falls within the
purview of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vijay
[2024:RJ-JD:40993] (5 of 5) [CW-16252/2024]
Singh (supra); the same shall be decided in terms of the
judgment above.
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 sought.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
32-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
