Amar Singh Kanthaliya vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36969)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7788 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amar Singh Kanthaliya vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36969) on 6 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:36969]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14599/2024

1.       Amar Singh Kanthaliya S/o Mansha Lal Kanthaliya, Aged
         About 66 Years, R/o 15, Babu Bali Colony, Dhulkot
         Chouraha, Udaipur.
2.       Smt. Uma Nandwana W/o Rajendra Nandwana, Aged
         About 62 Years, R/o 71-E, Class, Shiv Mandir Ki Gali,
         Pratap Nagar, Udaipur.
3.       Madan Lal Ameta S/o Badri Lal Ameta, Aged About 66
         Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Vallabhnagar, Udaipur.
4.       Smt. Usha Jain W/o Himmat Singh Nalwaya, Aged About
         67 Years, R/o 2-Kha-33, Shanti Nagar, Sun Rise Hospital,
         Hiran Magri Sector No. 5, Manwa Khera, Udaipur.
5.       Shyam Lal Paliwal S/o Late Mohan Lal Paliwal, Aged About
         69 Years, R/o 224, North Aayad, Near Shiv Bartan
         Bhandar, Udaipur.
6.       Punam Chand Sharma S/o Nathu Lal Sharma, Aged About
         64 Years, R/o Kue Ke Pass, Panoond, Via- Bambora,
         Panoond, Udaipur.
7.       Mohan Lal Regar S/o Bhera Lal Regar, Aged About 65
         Years, R/o Bhinder, Dharta, Udaipur.
8.       Fakir Mohd. Pinara S/o Mohd. Ismail Pinara, Aged About
         64 Years, R/o Bahar Ka Sehar, Bhinder, Sarangpura,
         Bhinder, Udaipur.
9.       Smt. Sheela Ghavri W/o Ravi Shankar Ghavri, Aged About
         63 Years, R/o 1119, Nahar Road, Chamanpura, Mavli,
         Udaipur.
10.      Smt. Nirmala Vyas W/o Prabhash Chandra Vyas, Aged
         About 68 Years, R/o 122, Nag Marg, Outside Chandpol,
         Udaipur.
                                                      ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
         Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
4.       Director, Primary Education, Udaipur.
5.       Deputy Director, Primary Education, Udaipur.
6.       District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
7.       District Education Officer, Primary Education, Udaipur.
8.       Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Radhe Shyam Mankad
For Respondent(s)         :     -



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

[2024:RJ-JD:36969] (2 of 3) [CW-14599/2024]

Order

06/09/2024

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 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

[2024:RJ-JD:36969] (3 of 3) [CW-14599/2024]

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

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

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 59-chhavi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)