Disposed

Virendra Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2016CW/1343/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court did not accept the writ petition immediately but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding his pay scale grievance, which the respondents were directed to decide with a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file fresh representation; direction to respondents to decide it within six weeks with speaking order.

Virendra Singh Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1343/2016 [VIRENDRA SINGH VS. STATE & ORS.]

Date of order

09.02.2016

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶9

Mr.M.S. Godara for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha Additional Advocte General.

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted as prayed.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha Additional Advocate General present in the Court is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Let two sets of the writ petition be supplied to him during the course of day.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Prabodhak' vide order dated 29.09.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.2,800/- but in the appointment order, his pay scale was fixed at Rs.4,450/-. The petitioner being aggrieved against the non-grant of regular pay scale from the date he joined service, he moved a representation dated 25.10.2015 while relying upon the judgment rendered in 2015 (3) RLW 2469 (Raj.) in the matter of Gopal Kumawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in which, it has been held that the fixed remuneration to

¶14

¶15

probationer trainees, is unconstitutional with the further direction that State Government shall pay regular pay and allowances, after deducting amount of fixed remuneration to all its' employees appointed on regular/ad-hoc basis under statutory rules. Since the representation has yet not been decided, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent submits that in case the petitioner moves a fresh representation, the same shall be decided expeditiously.

¶17

This Court deems it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to move a fresh representation to the respondentauthorities within a period of two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order, and respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation by passing a speaking order while considering the judgment of Gopal Kumawat (Supra).

¶18

Needless to say, in case any grievance of the petitioner survives, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court again.

¶19

In view of the above, the above noted writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.

¶21

Mamta

Virendra Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh v. State and Ors.

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

Gopal Lal Tolambia and Ors. Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Anr.

Jagdish Gir Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Yadav Vs State and Ors.

Zakir Husain Vs State and Anr.

Metu Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Kanti Lal Trivedi Vs State and Ors.