Disposed

Manoj Kumar SHARMAandORS v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2015CW/10757/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the respondents to consider granting Home Guards the minimum pay of police constables w.e.f. 01.03.2015 and to either comply or provide reasons within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider granting minimum pay of constables w.e.f. 01.03.2015 and to report reasons for non-compliance within two months.

Manoj Kumar SHARMAandORS Vs State Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10757/2015

¶3

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

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10757/2015 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS

¶6

VS.

¶7

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS.

¶8

DATE OF ORDER : 03.09.2015

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶10

Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, for the petitioners.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by 103 petitioners, who are working on the post of Home Guards for last several years. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay them regular pay scale commensurate to the post held by them with all consequential benefits. It is alternatively prayed that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners minimum of pay as payable to constable/police officer in the police department discharging identical duties to that of petitioners.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Ishwar Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4663/2012 and other connected writ petitions decided on 12.03.2015) and argued that this Court in that case relied upon various judgments, particularly judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in the case of Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another(Writ Petition No. 10000/2010 and other connected matters decided on

¶14

¶15

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10757/2015

¶16

02.12.2011), which was later on upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Damodar Malviya & Others (Special Leave to Appeal(C) CC Nos. 21470-21471/2014 decided on 21.01.2015) .

¶17

This Court in the case of Ishwar Singh & Others(supra) did not grant relief of regularisation of services of the petitioners therein, but directed that they shall be granted salary at the minimum of the pay prescribed for the post of constable in the police department without any running pay scale and allowances etc. w.e.f. 01.03.2015.

¶18

Madhya Pradesh High Court in Home Guard Sainik Evam

¶19

Parivar Kalyan Sangh and Others(supra), while dealing with the grievances raised on behalf of the Home Guards working in that State directed that till the final decision is taken by the State Government on the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission to lay down guidelines and rules or regulations to regulate working of the home guards, all the employees working as Home Guards be granted salary at minimum/basic of the pay prescribed for the lower post, i.e. constable in the police department, without any running pay scale, allowances etc. w.e.f. 01.01.2011.

¶20

Perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Damodar Malviya & Othres(supra) indicates that judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Home Guard Sainik Evam Parivar Kalyan Sangh and Others(supra) was substantially upheld with only modification that the benefit of minimum pay scale for the post of home guards shall be paid w.e.f. 01.12.2011 instead of 01.01.2011. In view of the judgment of this Court in Ishwar

¶21

¶22

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10757/2015

¶23

Singh & Others(supra) , the said benefit has been held to be paid w.e.f. 01.03.2015.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the aforesaid judgments, this Court, instead of entertaining this writ petition, deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners so as to grant them benefit of minimum of the pay prescribed for the post of constables in the Police Department without any running pay scale, allowances etc. w.e.f. 01.03.2015 and also consider other recommendations or otherwise give reasons, why such benefits have not been granted to the petitioners despite aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and pass appropriate order with regard thereto within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is produced before them.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶27

Manoj, S.NO.120.

¶28

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

Manoj Kumar SHARMAandORS v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar SHARMAandORS v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amita Patel Vs State Medical and Healthors

Suresh Chand Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs S K D Agarwal

Pooran Singh Seera Vs State Home Departmentors

Suresh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagdish Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp