Allowed

Sangeeta Sharma and Ors. v. State Medical Healt Welfare Dept Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 May 2017CW/6894/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition seeking revision of remuneration for Asha Supervisors. The Court held that the dispute was resolved by a coordinate bench and directed respondents to revise remuneration and release arrears within two months, subject to 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to revise remuneration and release arrears within two months; quash recovery and refund amounts within three months; interest @ 6% on default.

Sangeeta Sharma and Ors. Vs State Medical… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6894 / 2017

¶3

Sangeeta Sharma W/o Shri Manoj Sharma, by Caste Brahmin, Aged About 40 Years, Pahadi Mohalla, Bagar, Tehsil and DistrictJhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Asha Supervisor, PHC Ardawata, Block Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu )

¶4

Pushpa W/o Shri Ishwar Singh, by Caste Jat,, Aged About 40 Years, Gidania, Tehsil Chirawa, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Asha Supervisor, PHC Bakhtawarpura, Block Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu)

¶5

Alka W/o Shri Surender Kumar Bola, by Caste Jat,, Aged About 40 Years, Bola Ki Dhani, Village and Post- Mandrela Tehsil Chirawa, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Asha Supervisor, PHC Jarvoda, Block Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu)

¶6

Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, by Caste Brahmin,, Aged About 42 Years, Brahmin Basti, Ward No. 4, Doradas, Post - Binjusar, Tehsil and District - Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Asha Supervisor, PHC Mandli, Block Balotara, Distt. Barmer).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare,, Government Secretariat, 1st Floor, Main Building, Jaipur - 302005.

¶10

Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare and Mission Director, NHM, NRHM Block., RHSDP Building, Directorate of Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Behind Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil K. Sharma

¶13

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, G.C.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶15

05/05/2017

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the factual matrix that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication in the case

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-6894/2017]

¶19

of Anand Purohit & Ors. Versus State & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ

¶20

Petition No.8988/2014. It is further informed that an intra-court appeal against the opinion of the learned Single Judge was also declined in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.854/2016 (State & Ors. Versus Madhusudan Vyas & Ors.), and other analogous matters.

¶21

Referring to another writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.571/2017: Yogesh Singh Rathore & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., and analogous matter, adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, on 22^nd March, 2017, learned counsel would submit that a direction has been issued to the State-respondents to revise the remuneration of the petitioners therein within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 22^nd March, 2017, and to release the arrears found due. Failure to comply with the direction would carry an interest @ 6% on the amount due till the date of payment.

¶22

In view of the undeniable factual matrix as stated herein above; the instant writ application stands disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Anand Purohit & Ors. (supra).

¶23

The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for increment as per Clause-15 of the agreement(s) and to revise the remuneration of the petitioners as has been done vide order dated 10^th December, 2010. As a consequence of re-fixation of the remuneration and increment; amount due, if any, shall be released as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented. Failure to comply with the directions, as

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-6894/2017]

¶26

indicated above, would saddle the State-respondents with interest @ 6% on the amount due that may become payable to the petitioners.

¶27

Recovery, if any, effected from the petitioners is hereby quashed and the amount recovered shall be refunded to the petitioners within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶28

Stay application stands closed.

¶29

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶30

SS/175

Sangeeta Sharma and Ors. v. State Medical Healt Welfare Dept Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Sharma and Ors. v. State Medical Healt Welfare Dept Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Istak Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Meera Devi Vs R S R T C Jaipur and Anr.

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Amit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.