Dismissed

Sumer Chand Jain v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2014CW/70/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the writ petition wherein the petitioner claimed gratuity, leave encashment for 300 days, and unpaid salary for a month. The court held that since the petitioner retired after reversion to Class IV, gratuity was correctly calculated on that scale. Leave encashment of 300 days was rejected due to lack of proof for a favorable rule at the time of retirement, and

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; petitioner is not entitled to the claimed gratuity, leave encashment, or salary.

Sumer Chand Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.70/2008 (Sumer Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDUCATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.70/2008

¶5

(Sumer Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶6

Date of Order : 10^th January, 2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.Gaurav Jain, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Nikhil Simlote, for the respondent/s.

¶9

By the Court:

¶10

The petitioner is pressing this writ petition only against denial of benefit of gratuity on the pay scale of the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short “LDC”), benefit of leave encashment for a period of 300 days and lastly salary for a month of year 1999.

¶11

Learned counsel submits that petitioner was promoted to the post of LDC, thus was entitled to gratuity by considering the pay scale of the post aforesaid. The gratuity was given on the pay scale for the post of Class IV. The other issue is regarding leave encashment. The petitioner was given benefit for 150 days' leave whereas he was entitled for 300 days' leave encashment. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment for another period of 150 days. The last grievance is regarding non-payment of salary for a month in the year 1999.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner was promoted on the post of LDC but knowing about illegality therein, an order of reversion was passed. A writ petition was filed to challenged the same, however, the order reversion was up held. A contempt petition was filed by the petitioner later on but then it was also dismissed finding payment of salary for a month in the year

¶13

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.70/2008 (Sumer Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶14

¶15

1999.

¶16

So far as claim for leave encashment is concerned, at the relevant time, it was admissible maximum for a period of 150 days. It was endorsed in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

The claim for gratuity is made based on salary for the post of LDC whereas petitioner was reverted to the post of Class IV in the year 1998 itself. The reversion was up held by this Court, thus petitioner retired from the post of Class IV. The gratuity was thus rightly given in the pay scale of Class IV.

¶19

So far as the benefit of leave encashemnt for the period of 300 days is concerned, learned counsel could not show a rule to that effect. Earlier the rule was to the effect of benefit of leave encashment for maximum period of 150 days, though it was amended subsequently but whether amendment was made prior to retirement has not been brought on record. In view of above, petitioner is not entitled for aforesaid benefit also.

¶20

The payment of salary for a month of year 1999 has already been paid to the petitioner. The aforesaid was noticed while contempt petition was heard and even narrated in reply to the writ petition. In view of above, petitioner is not entitled for any of the claim made in this writ petition.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶23

S/No.6 Preety, Jr.P.A

¶24

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the

¶25

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.70/2008 (Sumer Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶26

¶27

judgment/order being emailed.

¶28

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Sumer Chand Jain v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Chand Jain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Kumar Rana Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.

Surendra Pal Singh Vs U O I and Ors.

Gopal Ram Vs State Education Departmentors

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Govind Purohit Vs Bank of Inida and Ors.

Mohan Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Anr.