Partly allowed

Raghu Nath Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 May 2012CW/256/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PETITIONER denied pension for retiring before 1989 Rules sought benefit as employees in Mohan Lal Sharma case. COURT directed respondents to consider petitioner for pension if any similarly placed employee received benefits before compliance with pending Supreme Court stay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for pension if any similarly placed employee retired prior to Rules 1989 and receiving benefit.

Raghu Nath Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.256/2008

¶6

Raghu Nath Singh versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶7

10.5.2012

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶9

Mr BL Gupta – for petitioner

¶10

Mr Dharmendra Pareek for Mr JM Saxena – for respondents BY THE COURT:

¶11

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is

¶12

heard finally.

¶13

It is a case where petitioner has been denied benefit of pension. He retired prior to the Notification providing pensionary benefits to the employees of Municipalities.

¶14

The issue aforesaid was considered by this court in the case of “Mohan Lal Sharma versus State of Rajasthan”, reported in RLW 200492) Raj 1050 and many other cases. A direction was issued to the respondents to provide pensionary benefits to the employees.

¶15

¶16

Many of the employees of Municipal Corporation are getting pensionary benefits though retired prior to the Pension Rules of 1989. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit to indicate names of few employees namely; Umesh Nath, Mohan Lal Sharma and Nathulal Nirmal who are getting pension and prayed for similar treatment.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that judgment in the case of Mohan Lal Sharma (supra) is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, stay has been granted on contempt proceedings. Respondents are not aware of the fact that any other employee has been extended benefit of pension even if retired prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Municipal (Pension) Rules, 1989. If, at all, any employee has been granted pension despite his retirement prior to the Rules of 1989, petitioner would also be given similar treatment but petitioner may be directed to abide by the final outcome of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶18

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel and perused the record.

¶19

¶20

It is a case where benefit of pension has been denied to the employees of the Municipal Corporation who retired from service prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1989. The issue of entitlement was decided by this court in the case of Mohan Lal / Sharma (supra) and many other cases. The issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and interim order has been passed on contempt proceedings. The fact, however, remains that other similarly situated employees said to have given benefit of pension as is coming out from the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. It is also noticed that petitioner is discarded by the family and he is having no means to survive. He is hand to mouth and his dependants have sent him to the government rescue centre. Looking to the over all circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions -

¶21

The respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for grant of pension if any other similarly placed employee has been extended pension though retired prior to the Rules of 1989. In that case, petitioner should also be given similar benefits.

¶22

It is agreed on behalf of the petitioner that even if benefit is granted pursuant to the directions in para No.1,

¶23

¶24

petitioner will abide by the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Sharma (supra).

¶25

The compliance of the above directions may be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶27

bnsharma

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶29

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Raghu Nath Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu Nath Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shradhanand Kashyap Vs Secretary Rural Develop Anr.

Smt Leela Sharma Vs Directore Local Bodies and Ors.

Hemraj Urf Rangeela Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Ghisu Singh Vs State Personnel Department

Lekhraj Shrichandani Vs State Bank of India Mumbai and a