Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Raoof vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40904) on 7 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40904]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3380/2019
Abdul Raoof S/o Shri Abdul Gaffar Kharadi, Aged About 65 Years,
Kharadi-Wara, Near Sadar Bazar, Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admin.), Medical And Health
Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Directorate,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree
Ms. Vinita.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/10/2024
1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Govind Dan Charan v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1068/2014, decided on 17.12.2015, against which Special Leave
Petition filed by the State has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 12.07.2016 and therefore, the
writ petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted relief as
granted in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).
[2024:RJ-JD:40904] (2 of 3) [CW-3380/2019]
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that
though the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Govind Dan
Charan (supra), however, it is submitted that as the petitioner has
raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to him be restricted.
3. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8
SCC 648.
4. In so far as the relief being claimed by the petitioner is
concerned, there is no dispute that the same is governed by the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan
(supra).
5. In so far as the plea raised by the respondents is concerned,
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Sharma v.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 11254/2016
decided on 07.10.2016 dealing with another writ petition of
identical nature after noticing the submissions of learned counsel
for the respondents held as under:-
"A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court
in the case of Union of India (supra) shows that the
same does not apply to the facts of the present case.
In the present case, no third party rights have been
affected. It pertains to a financial loss which is a
continuing injury to the petitioners. It is apparent that
in the case of Govind Dan Charan, the order has been
passed on 17th December, 2015 and the orders passed
in identical matters have already been implemented by
the Department in the connected writ petitions."
6. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to
the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
[2024:RJ-JD:40904] (3 of 3) [CW-3380/2019]
7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed
and it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to selection
grade and get fixation in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1720, 1200-
2050 and 1640-2900 (5500-9000) on completion of 9, 18 & 27
years of service respectively in terms of the judgment in the case
of State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi : (2009) 12
SCC 49 i.e. from the date of regular appointment.
8. The required exercise would be completed by the
respondents within a period of three months from the date of this
judgment.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
198-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
