Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37766) on 11 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:37766]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15020/2024
1. Jitendra Kumar Jain S/o Karu Lal, Aged About 64 Years,
R/o Village Magwas, Tehsil Jhadol, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Sugan Meghwal S/o Chain Ram Meghwal, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Magwas, Post Damana, Tehsil Jhadol, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rashid Mohammed Tanwar S/o Noor Mohammed, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o H. No. 26-27 B, Jagan Vihar, Thekra
Road, Borkhera, District Kota, Rajasthan.
4. Mahmood Khan S/o Chhote Khan, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o H. No. 104, New Akashwani Colony, Nayapura, Kota,
Rajasthan.
5. Sunder Lal Kalal S/o Shakra Ji Kalal, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Vpo Boriya, Post Phalasia, Tehsil Jhadol,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Omprakash Kuchoriya S/o Kalyan Sahay Kuchoriya, Aged
About 67 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Gopal Nagar, Baswa
Road, Ward No. 25, Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
7. Arjun Lal Sharma S/o Ghisa Lal Sharma, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Vpo Bamanwas, Post Bobadi, Via
Gathwadi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
8. Suraj Devi W/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 60
Years, R/o B-74, Shyam Colony, Tonk Road, Opposite
Sitabari, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director (Non Gazzated), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 11/09/2024 at 08:57:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:37766] (2 of 3) [CW-15020/2024]
5. The Director, Directorate, Ayurved Department,
Rajasthan, Ajmer.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
8. The Director, Department Of Pension And Pensioner's
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
11/09/2024
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:37766] (3 of 3) [CW-15020/2024]
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-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
