Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh Shaktawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:9679]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4482/2025
1. Govind Singh Shaktawat S/o Shri Dolat Singh Shaktawat,
Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mukam Post Indora, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 572557).
2. Lalshankar Patidar S/o Shri Dungar Ji Patidar, Aged About
68 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Laxminarayan Mandir Ke Pass
Ghat Ka Gaon, Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan
(Ppo No. 1027408)
3. Narayan Lal Verma S/o Shri Hansa Ji Verma, Aged About
62 Years, R/o Balai Fala, Mukam Nandali Sagora Post
Raiki, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1170170)
4. Madan Lal Bhavsar S/o Shri Keshrimal Bhavsar, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o Soorabh Sagar Colony, Partapur,
District Banswara, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1122748)
5. Raghunath Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Rup Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Mukam Post
Panchkundi, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
574294)
6. Keshav Dev Dagur S/o Shri Ramgopal Dagur, Aged About
61 Years, R/o Private Bus Stand, Ward No. 16, Gamat
Wada, Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No.
2941227891)
7. Chetan Lal Patidar S/o Shri Kishan Lal Patidar, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Village Post Jasela, Sagwara,
District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (Ppo No. 2941240888)
8. Urmila Sardar W/o Shri Rakesh Keshiya, Aged About 67
Years, R/o Near Mission Hospital, District Banswara,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 1059975)
9. Satya Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Dasharath Lal Ji
Choubisa, Aged About 72 Years, R/o House No. 2/129,
Shivaji Nagar Housing Board, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan (Ppo No. 578244)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner.
4. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
5. The Joint Director, Elementary Education, Udaipur.
6. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
Education, Dungarpur.
7. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary
Education, Banswara.
8. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary
[2025:RJ-JD:9679] (2 of 3) [CW-4482/2025]
Education, Dungarpur.
9. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary
Education, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/02/2025
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:9679] (3 of 3) [CW-4482/2025]
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
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.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
17-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
