Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranchhor Chouhan vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28804]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12269/2025
Ranchhor Chouhan S/o Sardar Mal Chouhan, Aged About 62
Years, R/o 4-F-9, Behind Shopping Centre, Pratap Nagar,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office
Chennai, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director,
24, Whites Road, Chennai.
2. Assistant Manager, Head Office, Chennai, Hrm
Department, 24, Whites Road, Chennai.
3. Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, United India
Insurance Company Ltd., City Centre, Olympic Road
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/07/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present cases 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28804] (2 of 4) [CW-12269/2025]
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
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 for the petitioner further submits that
recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding
Miscellaneous Application No.2400/2024 in Civil Appeal
No.3933/2023 (Union of India & Anr.vs M. Siddaraj) has
held as under:-
"We had passed the following interim order dated
06.09.2024, the operative portion of which reads as
under:
"(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect
to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment,
that is, the pension by taking into account one increment
will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced
pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be
paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and
succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will
operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced
pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment
has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has
been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate
court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application
for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No.
3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial
order has been passed, the enhanced pension by
including one increment will be payable from the month in
[2025:RJ-JD:28804] (3 of 4) [CW-12269/2025]
which the application for intervention/impleadment was
filed."
We are inclined to dispose of the present
miscellaneous applications directing that Clauses (a), (b)
and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be treated as
final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that
clause (d) of the order dated 06.09.2024 requires
modification which shall now read as under:
"(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for
intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original
application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal/High Courts/this Court, the enhanced pension by
including one increment will be payable for the period of
three years prior to the month in which the application for
intervention/ impleadment/writ petition/ original
application was filed."
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired
government employee who filed a writ petition/original
application or an application for intervention before the
Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court
after the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. V. M.
Siddaraj", as in such cases, clause (a) will apply.
Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous
applications are disposed of.
We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment
has already been made, including arrears, such amount
paid will not be recovered.
It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-
compliance with the directions and the clarification of this
Court, in the present order, to approach the concerned
authorities in the first instance and, if required, the
Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law.
Pending applications including all
intervention/impleadment applications shall stand
disposed of in terms of this order.
3. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be
permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent
authorities for redressal of her grievances.
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioner 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28804] (4 of 4) [CW-12269/2025]
the case of Vijay Singh (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddaraj (supra).
5. 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 petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
10-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
