Allowed

Bijoy Kumar Dutta and Anr. v. State Finance Department Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2017CW/14384/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought arrears withheld for Technical Education employees. Relying on Rajesh Sonania and Ashok Kumar Sharma precedents, the single Judge allowed the petitions directing similar benefits with 9% interest within three months.

What did the court decide?

Grant similar arrears benefits with 9% per annum interest, directed to be decided within two weeks and paid within three months.

Bijoy Kumar Dutta and Anr. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14384 / 2017

¶3

Bijoy Kumar Dutta Son of Shri Ram Murti Dutta, Aged About 61 Years, Resident of A-64, Shivpuri Colony, Budhsinghpura, Near Cheelgadi Restaurant, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶4

Pramod Kumar Arya Son of Shri Chandra Prakash, House No. 941, Sector 7B, UT Chandigarh.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Secretary to the Government, Technical Education Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Director, Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.L. Gothwal

¶12

For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶14

Order

¶15

13/09/2017

¶16

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 Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Sonania & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19160/2012, decided on 29^th October, 2014.

¶17

It is further contended that opinion aforesaid has also been followed by another Division Bench in a batch of writ applications

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-14384/2017]

¶20

lead case being D.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 11745 of 2015: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 9^th December, 2015, observing thus:

¶21

“The Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Sonania & Others (supra) held as under:

¶22

“16. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold the withholding of the arrears under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999, Rule 17 of the Rules of 2001, and Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010, to be discriminatory and thus, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed with direction to the State of Rajasthan to compute and pay the entire arrears to the petitioners of the Fifth Central Pay Commission for the period 01.09.1996 to 31.12.1998, and further for the period 01.09.2006 to 31.12.2008 for all the 12 petitioners, after taking a declaration from them that they were actually serving during that period and were entitled to the arrears, provided such arrears were withheld, within a period of three months. The arrears will be paid to the petitioners with simple interest calculated at the rate 9% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs.” We, therefore, allow the present writ petitions and direct that similar benefits be extended to the petitioners along with interest 9% per annum. Compliance of the order be made by the respondents within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before them.”

¶24

It is also contended that for the present; the petitioners

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-14384/2017]

¶27

would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners and extend the same benefit as extended to identically situated persons in the case of Rajesh Sonania & Ors. (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶28

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Rajesh Sonania & Ors. (supra).

¶29

In case, the claim of the petitioners is found covered by the adjudication aforesaid; similar benefit be accorded to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum. The respondents would ensure compliance of this order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶30

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶31

SS/176

Bijoy Kumar Dutta and Anr. v. State Finance Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijoy Kumar Dutta and Anr. v. State Finance Department 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

Shashi Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

J v v N L L Td and Anr. Vs Upper District and Session Jud

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Bunkar and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Company and Ors.

Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kanchan Lal Vs Secretary to the Govt and Ors.