Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39692) on 24 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39692]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15679/2024
1. Jagdish Chandra Joshi S/o Shri Shiv Lal Joshi, Aged About
67 Years, Resident Of Surana Gali, Gandhi Chok, Dist.-
Chittorgarh.
2. Om Prakash Ojha S/o Shri Madan Lal Ojha, Aged About
64 Years, Resident Of 24-D, Bapu Nagar, Senthi Road,
No.- 13, Chittorgarh.
3. Smt. Varsha Chouhan W/o Shri Ramesh Chandra
Chouhan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Krishan
Vatika, Madhuvan, Senthi, Chittorgarh.
4. Nand Lal Sharma S/o Shri Krishna Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 71 Years, Resident Of Jaymanti Niwas, Devnarayan
Gali, Opposite Janakdevi Kalyan Kendra, Kawakheda,
Bhilwara.
5. Shafat Khan Pathan S/o Shri Hakeem Khan Pathan, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of 356, Naye Abadi, Satkhanda,
Shambhupura, Dist.- Chittorgarh.
6. Abdul Hamid Khan S/o Shri Bahadur Khan, Aged About 69
Years, Resident Of Near Bank, Gariyo Ka Mohalla, Kannoj,
Dist.- Chittorgarh.
7. Smt. Sunita Modi W/o Shri Subhash Modi, Aged About 64
Years, Resident Of Geetanjali Colony, Nimbaheda, Dist.-
Chittorgarh.
8. Dr. Dinesh Chandra Kanther S/o Shri Ratanlal Kanther,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 119-2 B, Scheme No.-
5, Near Housing Board, Pratapnagar, District- Chittorgarh.
9. Om Prakash Rathi S/o Shri Laxminarayan Rathi, Aged
About 75 Years, Resident Of A-47, Pratapnagar, District-
Chittorgarh.
10. Narendra Kumar Deera S/o Shri Udaylal Deera, Aged
About 63 Years, 31-A, Vardhman Nagar, Brahmpuri,
Behinf Chungi Naka, Senthi, District- Chittorgarh.
11. Prithviraj Lodha S/o Shri Nand Lal Lodha, Aged About 63
Years, Resident Of Village Dhenetkalan, District-
Chittorgarh.
12. Govind Sahay Sharma S/o Shri Gokul Chand Sharma,
Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Plot- 69, Vijay Nagar,
Opposite Veer Tejaji Temple, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 25/09/2024 at 09:03:18 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39692] (2 of 4) [CW-15679/2024]
13. Manoj Kumar Chundawat S/o Gokul Lal Chundawat, Aged
About 63 Years, 258, Bijaipur, Dist. Chittorgarh.
14. Khalil Ahamad Shaikh S/o Fayyazuddin Shaikh, Aged
About 68 Years, 457, New Abadi Kajod Pura, Ward No.14
Sawa, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Finance Secretary, Department Of Finance,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Treasury And Accounts Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, 4 Sector,
Directorate Of Pension And Pensioner's Welfare ,
Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
5. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
6. The Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Udaipur.
7. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Chittorgarh.
8. The District Education Officer (Primary), Chittorgarh.
9. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Chittorgarh.
10. The Treasury Officer, Treasury Office, Chittorgarh.
11. The Director, Ayurveda Department Rajasthan, Ajmer.
12. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
13. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
Education, Chittorgarh.
14. The District Collector, Chittorgarh.
15. The Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chittorgarh.
16. The Deputy Director, Ayurveda Department, Chittorgarh.
17. The Principal, Maharana Pratap Government Post
Graduate College, Chittorgarh.
18. Block Chief Medical Officer, Gangrar, Dist.- Chittorgarh.
19. The Tehsildar, Land Records, Kapasan, Chittorgarh.
20. The Director, College Education, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 25/09/2024 at 09:03:18 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39692] (3 of 4) [CW-15679/2024]
21. The Administrator, Ayurveda Laboratory, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S.Sisodia.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
24/09/2024
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
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"
[2024:RJ-JD:39692] (4 of 4) [CW-15679/2024]
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
23-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
