Disposed

Malchand Khateek v. R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 May 2018CW/10788/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought resolution of controversy by referring to a coordinate bench decision. Court directed State respondents to decide petitioner's representation within twelve weeks or accord benefit of the earlier decision if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks of receipt or accord benefit of the coordinate bench decision.

Malchand Khateek Vs R S R T C and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10788/2018

¶3

Malchand Khateek S/o Shri Prabhati Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Khateeko Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 29, Village And Post Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Jaipur.

¶7

Executive Director (Administration), Rsrtc, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Pension And Gratuity Officer, Rsrtc, Head Office, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

17/05/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 Number 14748/2014: Prahlad Singh Versus The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., decided on 28^th September, 2015.

¶15

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

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-10788/2018]

¶18

within two weeks hereinafter.

¶19

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

¶20

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 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶21

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

¶22

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶24

SS/181

Malchand Khateek v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malchand Khateek v. R S R T C 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

Prempal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramesh Bairagi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Paras Ram and Ors. Thr Lrs Vs Shri Khemraj and Ors.

Hanuman Panchal and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Amar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mahadev Prashad Soni Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp