Sahadev Kumar And Ors vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:1256)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3968 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sahadev Kumar And Ors vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:1256) on 8 January, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:1256]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5864/2013

Virendra Singh & Anr.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
State & Ors.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                         Connected With
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5847/2013
Sahadev Kumar & Ors.
                                                   ----Petitioners
                              Versus
State & Ors.
                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. M.S. Godara.
                                 Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC.
                                 Mr. Digvijay Singh Sodha.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

08/01/2025

1. The petitioners herein, inter alia, seek directions to the

respondents to count the services rendered by them in past as

part of the services rendered on the post of Prabodhak.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that the petitioners have superannuated during pendency of the

service. However, they are since entitled to the benefit of

qualifying service for the purpose of determination of their

pensionery benefits in terms of the Division Bench judgment

rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Chandra Ram (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 589/2015, decided

on 07.07.2017), therefore, if the competent authority of the

Department considers the case of the petitioners on the

[2025:RJ-JD:1256] (2 of 2) [CW-5864/2013]

administrative side, they are sanguine that they will be metet out

with a favourable treatment.

3. Apropos, learned counsel for the respondents does not object

to the aforesaid suggestion of learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. In the premise, both the writ petitions are disposed of with

the expectation from the competent authority that upon the

petitioners approaching with an appropriate representation, the

matter shall be taken up on administrative side and necessary

orders, as warranted, shall be passed in accordance with law by

keeping in mind the ratio rendered in Chandra Ram ibid.

5. Disposed of accordingly.

6. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

(ARUN MONGA),J 12-13-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)