Dismissed

Ganesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2018CW/11519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of an explanation to the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. The court held that a coordinate Bench had previously upheld the same rule's validity and followed that decision.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as the validity of the rule was already upheld by a coordinate Bench.

Ganesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ No. 11519/2018

¶3

Ganesh Kumar S/o Shri Hakariya, Age 28 Years, R/o Village Amaliyamal, Post Patan, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶4

Mangal Singh Katara S/o Shri Moti Ram Katara, Age 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Pali Badi, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶5

Asha Kumari D/o Shri Khuman Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Dokar, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶6

Heena Panda D/o Shri Rakesh Panda, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Osara, Post Tambesara, Tehsil Sajjangarh District Banswara (Raj.).

¶7

Prabhu Lal Bariya S/o Shri Badar Bariya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Dhanpuri Post Unkala, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶8

Arvind Kumar Katara S/o Shri Malaji, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Pali Badi, Post Pali Badi, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through The Director, Department of Elementary Education Bikaner (Raj.).

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara (Raj.).

¶13

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha on behalf of Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-11519/2018]

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶19

Order

¶20

04/09/2018

¶21

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity of Explanation to Rule 10 to the Rajasthan Rural Development and Panchayati Raj State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (‘the Rules of 1998’) made under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that a writ petition involving identical question already stands dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.9.12 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9673/12 (Ramesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the validity of Explanation to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1998, has been upheld.

¶23

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed in light of decision of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Choudhary’s case (supra).

¶24

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶25

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶26

vij30

Ganesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Srawan Kumar

Jodhpur Development Authority Vs Smt. Champa Devi

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs M/S Preksha Gems

Ashish Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.