Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shrawan Lal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36688) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36688]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14518/2024
1. Shrawan Lal Sharma S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 70 Years, R/o Plot No. 31, Near Shyampuri,
Kanta, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Vinod Kumar Tongra S/o Devi Prasad Tongra, Aged About
65 Years, R/o Ramkuti Ashoka Takij Ke Piche, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Janak Mathur W/o Kamlesh Mathur, Aged About 69
Years, R/o G-41-A, G Block Makarwali Road, Vaishali
Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. Bhana Ram S/o Dana Ram, Aged About 71 Years, R/o
Village Bherupura, Post Singhrawat, Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. Shri Kant S/o Shree Padji, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 30,
Geeta Kunj, Near Rajendra Hotel, Ganpati Marg,
Bhimganj, Mandi, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Water
Resources Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Regional Development, Indra Gandhi
Nahar Project, Bikaner.
3. The Chief Engineer, Indra Gandhi Nahar Project, Bikaner.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Jaipur.
6. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Ajmer.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Energy Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
8. The Chairman, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
9. The Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
10. The Secretary (Admin), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 08:58:10 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:36688] (2 of 3) [CW-14518/2024]
11. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
12. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
13. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
14. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioners
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hansraj Nimbar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
03/09/2024
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 case
of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations
made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional
increment to the petitioners. The petitioners' pension
[2024:RJ-JD:36688] (3 of 3) [CW-14518/2024]
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
97-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
