Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanuman Prasad Delu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36764) on 4 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36764]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14488/2024
1. Hanuman Prasad Delu S/o Shri Imrata Ram, Aged About
67 Years, R/o Khichra Bass, Ward No. 2, Sadul Sahar,
Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
(Retired on 30.06.2017 as Senior Draftsman) (PPO No.
0151-1060352-R)
2. Bihari Lal S/o Shri Laxman Ram, Aged About 76 Years,
R/o 6/12, Rajasthan Avasan Mandal Colony,
Hanumangarh, District - Hanumangarh.
(Retired on 30.06.2008 As UDC) (PPO No. 640930-R)
3. Chetan Anand Dave S/o Shri Lalit Kant Dave, Aged About
67 Years, R/o 212, Pragati Nagar, Ward No. 25,
Pratapgarh, District- Pratapgarh,
(Retired On 30-06-2017 As Lecturer) (PPO No. 0294-
1058651-R).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Secretary, College Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. The Commissioner, College Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
7. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur.
8. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Jaipur.
9. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources North,
Hanumangarh.
10. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,
Circle, Sri Ganganagar.
11. The Executive Engineer, Gaghar Flood Control Division,
Suratgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar, District - Sri
Ganganagar, At Present Merged In Executive Engineer,
(Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 09:01:39 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:36764] (2 of 3) [CW-14488/2024]
Bhakhra, Sidhmukh Regulation Division, Hanumangarh.
12. The Assistant Engineer, Gaghar Flood Control, Sub
Division, Hanumangarh. At Present Merged In Assistant
Engineer Regulation, Sub Division-Ii, Hanumangarh.
13. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Bikaner.
14. The Treasury Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
15. The Treasury Officer, Hanumangarh.
16. The Principle, Government P.G. College, Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/09/2024
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 caseof
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
[2024:RJ-JD:36764] (3 of 3) [CW-14488/2024]
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
76-/Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
