Dismissed

Munna Lal Gupta andORS v. State Revenu Departmentanr

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2017CW/12235/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that the controversy is resolved by a coordinate Bench decision in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5628/2016. The court dismissed the writ by directing petitioners to submit a representation and requiring the State to decide it within three months, potentially granting covered benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ and stay application disposed; State directed to consider petitioners' representation within three months and grant benefits if covered by Abdul Hami.

Munna Lal Gupta andORS Vs State Revenu… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12235 / 2016

¶3

Munna Lal Gupta & Ors.

¶4

----Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State (Revenu Department) Anr.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶10

25/04/2017

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5628/2016: Abdul Hamid Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 11^th July, 2016.

¶12

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶13

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Abdul Hamid (supra).

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CW-12235/2016]

¶16

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶17

In case, claim of the petitioners is found covered by the adjudication aforesaid in the case of Abdul Hamid (supra), the petitioners be also accorded the same benefit.

¶18

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.

¶19

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶20

SS/57

Munna Lal Gupta andORS v. State Revenu Departmentanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Gupta andORS v. State Revenu Departmentanr

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

Gopesh Sharma Vs Dr Naina Sharma

Ratan Lal Vs Uraban Dev Trust through Secretay Alwar

Rahul Soni Vs Smt Sunita Soni and Anr.

Champa Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Savita Rawat Vs State of Raj and Anr.