Dismissed

Amlesh Kumar v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC16 Sept 2016CW/12751/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a 2010 order reducing subsistence allowance and seeking regular increment after suspension recall. Court dismissed writ petition as suffering from laches due to undue delay. Liberty granted for subsequent representation regarding increment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make proper representation for grant of necessary benefits of regular increment.

Amlesh Kumar Vs State Home Departmentors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12751/2016

¶3

Amlesh Kumar Slo Late Shri Gordhan Singh, aged about 56 years, 3, i.' T 1; resident of Plot no.-42,ari$nt Nggar,hola,,%nsarovar, Jaipur. . &J$l ""; " ' Y + '." '! .Zi -7 =: [ .... Petitioner .. ; :i, * . i .? 6 ., Versus i * ->L ,? " gpi I. State of Rajasthan through Director General of olice'$i.e.,olice Head "" k 6: " Quagter,, gaipur. .i.i 7 '..' p- 2.9he'Superintendent +.. iajj;v of Police, Kota City, Kota. '9: % , ,< , ,. 3:the Superintendent of Police, District Baran.

¶4

.... Respondents ,;, z:v"t ~ -$%A. DATE OF. g+-qksksf ORDER"";..;$, '4 52% .. 16/09/2016 a:.-ya ,,:, JL i HONBL.-~~.:,~~S.IE.~~~B ~ ~ ANDARI

¶5

Mr. Sandeep

¶6

to the order was

¶7

. .. <: d_ ilir: dz f : ?" ,,J .A. &a&& The impugned,loydey-,$o:redetebsubsistence , 1 : A .? allowance . .- - &&" y L?ix#,#-f&4 **vi: ..w&f$-:e+ $ ; $$a5%$+, was passed in theyea't2010.1:e:alrn0st-s 41%gA96* _.**,._ e:4r' years back from the , .!$I .. . .:.+.i .IY~:~-. .u;' >?$ *I < i, > i .L. Li date of filing of$ttie - - 4,uJq$>, YYrd:.-petition!:JJQi **g~;;;-wa:+-** ..+ -s between, order of - - . ,%4 .x ?<s:s*f.5L7z..-, - ?+J+&b1$ **$%--La,** % V**:~~~.&>.>S&L& ~.. suspension was also revoked, h that too, .in the year 2012. The '.. ""p"C"U' **;.a&"_** , +,T":'rl I -..-=-s 9-4 y ." :: .&! <.%I ,^{.a: . ii} ;... "1' delay in filing writ Bpetitronk;"has+i'ri-d t jeen explained for challenge to the order dated 28th June, 2010. The reduction of subsistence allowance was otherwise due to delay caused by the petitioner in the trial.

¶8

¶9

The writ petition for challenge to the order dated 28th

¶10

June, 2010 suffers from laches.

¶11

The other prayer is for grant of regular increment after

¶12

recall of the order of su,spens'ibn.t :: x*"" r i ,.. : 'q? -y it L f *<+~ I' g I fin,d, th&. "- before ,. approaching ;this--,. court, no * $86," P $!' '< .nw i. .I represet&itidn has been made to get benefdi oi' regular '%& b ,/ isii . %&.& 2 Increment. In any case, the petitioner is given liberty to,make .. , ~ a i>lS %%' * $ '" .> g; - xxii i ..? proper representation now for grant of necessary benefits bf

¶13

due and has not

¶14

h the aforesaid.

¶15

FRBOHRA

Amlesh Kumar v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amlesh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Neelam Suiwal Anr. Vs J D a and Ors.

Pawan Singh Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

A C T O Jaipur Vs M/S Iswar General Store

Harish Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs State P H E D an Dors

Hanuman Sahai MEENAandORS Vs State P H E D and Ors.