Disposed

Sahruddin v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2012CW/6491/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding the discontinuation of dearness allowance following a judgment awarding equal pay. It directed the Director of College Education to consider granting the allowance and allowed a fresh writ petition if unremedied.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 (Director of College Education) to consider granting dearness allowance; liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition if denied.

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

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 384/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 384/2014 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6491/2007

¶6

SAHRUDDIN VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 04.12.2014

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶9

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, for the applicant-petitioner.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

Grievance of the applicant-petitioner is that this Court vide judgment dated 01.03.2012, while allowing the writ petition directed the respondents to pay minimum of the pay scale in the regular pay scale of the post of Lab Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.2012 on month to month basis. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially, the petitioner was paid minimum of the pay scale together with dearness allowance till 27.06.2013 but, thereafter the respondents have discontinued payment of dearness allowance and have started paying the petitioner only minimum of the pay scale which is contrary to principal of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lab Assistant with the respondents on 11.01.1989. His services were terminated on 06.05.1990. The Labour Court vide award dated 30.04.2003 held the aforesaid termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without any back wages. Thus, in this manner the petitioner has completed more than 25 years in the service of the respondents. He is,

¶12

¶13

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 384/2014

¶14

therefore, entitled to regular pay scale which should also include dearness allowance.

¶15

Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the petitionerapplicant is required to approach Respondent No. 2-Director of College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by way of submitting an application along with copy of this order, who shall consider making payment of dearness allowance along with minimum pay scale to the petitioner.

¶16

If the grievance of the petitioner is not remedied, he would be at liberty to file fresh writ petition.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, misc. application stands disposed of.

¶18

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶19

Manoj,

¶20

S.NO.102.

¶21

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

¶22

MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.

Sahruddin v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahruddin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chhitar Mal Gurjar Vs R.S.I.D.I. Cooperative

M D R S R T C Vs Shri Sahib Singh and Anr.

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

Mamta Kumari Jat Vs Director General of Police Ors.

Ram Bharosi Verma Vs State Panchayati Raj Depors