Allowed

Malu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2018CW/10387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition regarding pay-scale fixation. The bench held that the plea was not barred by delay since no third-party rights were affected, directing the department to implement the relevant Supreme Court judgment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to selection grade and fixation in pay-scale as per State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi; exercise to be completed by respondents within three months.

Malu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10387/2018

¶3

Malu Singh S/o Late Shri Gopi Singh Ji, Aged About 68 Years, Aged About 68 Years By Caste Rawana Rajput, Resident Of Near Shiv Mandir, Minda, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Though Secretary, Medical And Health Department,

¶7

The Director, Medical And Health Welfare Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal for Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

03/10/2018

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/s that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Govind Dan Charan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1068/2014, decided on 17.12.2015, against which Special Leave Petition filed by the State has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.07.2016 and, therefore, the writ petition be allowed and the petitioner/s be granted relief as granted in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-10387/2018]

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that though the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra), however, it is submitted that as the petitioner/s has/have raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to him/them be restricted.

¶18

Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648.

¶19

In so far as the relief being claimed by the petitioner/s is concerned, there is no dispute that the same is governed by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).

¶20

In so far as the plea raised by the respondents is concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 11254/2016 decided on 07.10.2016 while dealing with another writ petition of identical nature after noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents held as under:-

¶21

“A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) shows that the same does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, no third party rights have been affected. It pertains to a financial loss which is a continuing injury to the petitioners.

¶22

It is apparent that in the case of Govind Dan Charan, the order has been passed on 17^th December, 2015 and the orders passed in identical matters have already been implemented by the Department in the connected writ petitions.”

¶23

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel

¶24

appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to the petitioner/s cannot be countenanced.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-10387/2018]

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner/s is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner/s would be entitled to selection grade and get fixation in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1720, 1200-2050 and 1640-2900 (5500-9000) on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service respectively in terms of the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi : (2009) 12 SCC 49 i.e. from the date of regular appointment.

¶28

The required exercise would be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

¶29

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶30

A.K. Chouhan/-96

Malu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kunj Behari Swami Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Sampat Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Har Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarti Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhulla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Hakim Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan