Smt. Vijaylaxmi Ojha vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4606 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Vijaylaxmi Ojha vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:2587]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/2025

Smt. Vijaylaxmi Ojha W/o Late Shri Laxminarain, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Barah Guard Chowk, Outside Nathaniyo Ki Sarai, Bikaner District Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.

2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner.

4. Assistant Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Bikaner.

5. Treasurer, Bikaner, Distt. Bikaner.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manoj Bohra



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

15/01/2025

1. The petitioner's husband had filed a writ petition (SBCWP No.

6196/2020, which was disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in light of the judgment in the case of Dadam Das

Vaishnav vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

8309/2012).

2. Consequently, her husband (Sh. Laxminarain) was conferred

due benefits, however, in wake of audit objection, a recovery was

initiated against the petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JD:2587] (2 of 3) [CW-619/2025]

3. Being aggrieved with the recovery proceedings, the

petitioner filed a writ petition (SBCWP No. 4103/2024), which

came to be allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and

recovery order was quashed in light of the judgment of Hon'ble

the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors.

vs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC

334.

4. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a

grievance that though the recovery order has been quashed, the

respondents are not sending her case for revision of pension in

light of the judgment in the case of Dadam Das Vaishnav (supra).

5. Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner would be satisfied if the competent authority of the

respondents is directed to expeditiously consider petitioner's

Notice for Demand of Justice dated 13.06.2024 sent on

petitioner's behalf.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith photocopy of the

Notice for Demand of Justice dated 13.06.2024, copy of judgment

in the case of Dadam Das Vaishnav (supra) and certified copy of

the order instant within a period of four weeks from today.

7. In case representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall consider the same, in accordance with law, as early

as possible, preferably within a period of three months of receipt

thereof.

8. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

[2025:RJ-JD:2587] (3 of 3) [CW-619/2025]

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

9. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 66-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)