Disposed

Vinod Kumar Mudgal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2018CW/13546/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A coordinate bench having adjudicated on a similar representation filed by the petitioner, the Court closed the writ application, directing the State to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks by passing a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Writ application closed; direction issued to respondents to consider petitioner's representation and decide within four weeks by speaking order.

Vinod Kumar Mudgal Vs State of Raj 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. 1354612018

¶3

Vinod Kumar Mudgal S/o Tara Chand , R/o Village Khediya Brahmin Post Jharkai Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur Rajasthan, At Present Working Of The Post Of Teacher Grade - Iii At Government Shiksha Karmi Cprimary School, Padli, Gram Panchayat Kukawas Tehsil And Panchayat Samiti, Kotda, District Udaipur Rajasthan

¶4

.. "".,I -j-x 2. ----Petitioner
, q$ Jk B-k * G &T-y
2; ;%Aa Y ,.'% & &T v, @. %
3 %
v> ..
Versus "t-g
.fL 2-,..". P" ' a, m @"., ..
ik ..n
I. Stat,e b$&jasthan Through Secretary Rllral,D0evelopment
.%& '$ %"&", 1.-
And % pp Banchayati Raj Department Govt. ecgbas , Jaipur
&gh
,rVG-r {afasthan 2 A
PS yP-"
2. irector, Elementary Education , Rajasthan, Bikaner
C+jC$ -eFv#+* "".",i5-=4J.
3. Chief Executive ,0&p9~~f;~~garshad, Udaipur Rajasthan
G+e-Te 3%
-<,fT&> YTkYF&t,>':w+q$ $s$q$ &: ,,-
4. District ducaf 84,+ie. iohBfi,$Ime:g.t.ary .a&i3: y. :,::~34~~~~:$ , .ci *,& Education , Udaipur,
?.7;2x 7gY;r kd.*.;;.k!.x3x,2c42~$~~~;~$q
Raja st ha n . &w+k+kp.24i ,I :
&&+. ,. +# 2% ..Q ? Li""i$$: 41% F&* ,".(j"4t, >4
%~~~t+ :+ ,.%w% d.~~e;~.spyi;y 'Mp$,d' 2,c .T.r~~ q) ,m
5. Block Elementa,lry;*t8 a$~~~wra$an&60fficer si.,a..w ;-.Ag ur* , Kotda District
p:s";.tI"v ., $&&$ ~'.$<;: ,>; *$.;%izt-.. $;;lb
Udaipur, Rajastfi&n&f2~la.la.;8.J2$b<&<7kf
+sA~4~~&i";,&&k
6. Block Elementa
Udaipur, Rajasth

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

Order

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition Number

¶9

14215/2012: Vikram Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; decided on 3rd October, 2012.

¶10

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 he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶11

-;i -y.*T !"- ,-<< In view of the.'iIrni&d)$j-a~~~~ J-m **jy--.:~, A* - !add+ressed; w &,#. the instant writ $ 'k4, rqr A&, PGL -% @@>r- proceedings are=lBsed with a direction to the pettroer to address "la _,2'_ 3. Lr" A?."-' ,& &, a compre$et$ive representation enclosing a copy df&t$.e order in $L$&

¶12

Qi&> "4% f/ 3.

¶13

the case df Vikram Chand & Ors. (supra).

¶14

In case, a represen addressed within the aforesaid period, th directed to consider and decide the sa speaking order as

¶15

expeditiously as po th law. However, in no case later than four w date of receipt of the representation alon

¶16

With the obse above, the writ application st-

Vinod Kumar Mudgal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Mudgal 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

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Meghwal Vs Rpsc

Balram Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishram Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Kant Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhupesh Kumar Ahari Vs State of Raj and Ors.