Disposed

O P Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2017CW/6597/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition regarding pension grievances. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the State respondents, enclosing a copy of a specific High Court judgment. The respondents were ordered to decide the representation within six weeks. The original application was disposed of based on this direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address comprehensive representation enclosing copy of judgment; State to decide within six weeks.

O P Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6597 / 2017

¶3

O.P. Sharma Son of Shri D.K. Sharma, by Caste Brahmin, Aged About 68 Years, 136, Jain Vihar, Behind Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Pr. Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Nahar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Director, Directorate of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta

¶11

For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

12/07/2017

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more resintegra , in view of the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 119/2009 (The State of Rajathan & Anr. Vs. Darbari Lal & Anr.) and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 646/2005 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Dutt Gaur & Anr.) decided on 29th October, 2014, holding thus:

¶16

"9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which have been referred to in the letter of the

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-6597/2017]

¶19

Secretary, BBMB, as well as in the judgment in P.C. Gandhi Vs. State of Rajasthan's case(supra), it would be clear that the respondents were not sent on deputation to BBMB, and that is why they were not repatriated even after the maximum period of deputation of five years, provided under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. They were also not paid the deputation allowances. They were all along treated as transferred employees on the post reserved on sharing basis on the capital outlay of the State of Rajasthan in BBMB, as officers of the Irrigation Department.

¶20

The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.10098/2007, in a judgment arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, has also explained the position, with regard to transfer of the employees of the Punjab Government to BBMB. The same principle will apply to the instant case, as the employees serving in the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan, were transferred on the same terms and conditions, in the proportion of capital outlay of the State of Rajathan in BBMB.

¶21

On the aforesaid facts, we do not find that the distinction drawn by learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, on the basis of Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, has any application to the facts of the case.

¶22

On the above discussion, we do not find that learned Single Judge committed any error of law in following the judgment in P.C. Gandhi Vs. State of Rajasthan's case(supra), and in allowing the same relief to the respondents.

¶23

Both the Special Appeals are dismissed, with the observation that pension in respect of the respondents in these Special Appeals will be redetermined on the last pay drawn by them in BBMB

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-6597/2017]

¶26

on the date of their superannuation, when they were serving in BBMB, and considering the circumstances in which the State Government had unnecessarily dragged the respondents into litigation, we direct that entire arrears, on such redetermination, will be paid to the respondents with interest @ 12% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of service of the judgment on the respondents.

¶27

Both the Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with costs with the aforesaid observations."

¶28

A copy of the judgment will be placed in the connected file.

¶29

Learned counsel further contends that a representation was addressed for redressal of grievances, but the same did not evoke any response, and therefore, the petitioner served a legal notice through his counsel, but no response has been received.

¶30

In view of the above, the petitioner is required to address a comprehensive representation afresh, enclosing a copy of the judgment in the case of Darbari Lal & Anr. (Supra), to the Staterespondents, within two weeks hereinafter.

¶31

In case, a representation is so addressed within two weeks hereinafter, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order taking note of the adjudication by this Court in the case of Darbari Lal & Anr. (Supra), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-6597/2017]

¶34

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the

¶35

writ application stands disposed off.

¶36

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶37

SS/277

O P Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O P Sharma v. State of Raj 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

Aslam Khan Vs Nanak Chand Vashishth

Rishi Lal Chhabara Vs Prem Kumar Mehta

Ramlal Punia and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dharampal Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Poonam Khandelwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Yashwant Singh Vs M D Rural Industrial andANR