Allowed

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Samdani and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2014CW/216/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking clarification on the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal's order regarding an employee's promotion. The Court held that 'consequential benefits' in this context refer solely to 'notional benefits' and not monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that consequential benefits for the respondent meant only 'notional benefits' and not monetary benefits.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.216/2014 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Samdani & Anr.

¶2

Order dt: 05/03/2014

¶3

1/2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶5

AT JODHPUR

¶6

ORDER

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.216/2014

¶8

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

¶9

Ashok Kumar Samdani & Anr.

Date of Order

:::

05th March, 2014

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

Mr. B.L. Bhati, Govt. Counsel for the petitioner- State. Mr. K.K. Vyas, for the respondent No.1.

¶17

BY THE COURT :

¶18

1. In the present writ petition filed by the petitioner- State against the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 23.01.2013, the only prayer made by the learned Govt. Counsel, is that though the respondent No.1 has been appointed as 'Agricultural Lab Assistant' with effect from 19.10.1994, and has been promoted as such but the direction of the learned Tribunal to give consequential benefits (प�र�ण�म�क ल�भ) may be clarified to be only 'notional benefits' since the petitioner did not actually work on the said post, therefore, the financial benefits cannot be granted to him on account of this direction of the Tribunal.

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.216/2014 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Samdani & Anr.

¶20

Order dt: 05/03/2014

¶21

2/2

¶22

2. Mr. K.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent

¶23

No.1/employee fairly submits that instead of financial benefits, notional benefits deserve to be given to the employee in terms of the order of the learned Service Appellate Tribunal.

¶24

3. On the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition of the petitioner- State is disposed of with a clarification of the order of the learned Tribunal that consequential benefits for the respondent No.1/employee would mean only the 'notional benefits' and not the monetary benefits.

¶25

4. With the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy fo this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

¶26

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶27

DJ/31

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Samdani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Samdani and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Kumar Bohra and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Bhola Ram Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

State of Raj. Vs Manak Chand and Anr.

Ram Singh Rathore Vs Raj. State Road Tran. Corpn. and Ors.

Somshekhar Vyas Vs Vice. Chan. M P Agri.andTEC UNIVERSITandORS

Abdul Rajjak Vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur