Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2018CW/13563/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A coordinate bench judgment in Ramchandra Sharma was applied to hold that the petitioner is entitled to selection grade and fixation in a specified pay-scale from the date of regular appointment, rejecting restrictions on relief due to delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to selection grade and fixation in pay-scale of Rs.975-1720 etc. from date of regular appointment.

Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13563/2018

¶4

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Bal Das, Aged About 70 Years, Vpo-Loha, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Director, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶10

Additional Director (Admn.), Department Of Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶11

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Churu.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishab Tayal.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶15

19/12/2018

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 12.7.2016 and therefore, the writ petition be allowed and the petitioner/s be granted relief as granted in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).

¶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 have raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to him/them be restricted.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-13563/2018]

¶20

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

¶21

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).

¶22

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.: SBCWP No.11254/2016 decided on 7.10.2016 dealing with another writ petition of identical nature after noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents held as under:-

¶23

“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.

¶24

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.”

¶25

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to the petitioner/s cannot be countenanced.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to selection grade and get fixation in the pay-scale of Rs.975-1720, 12002050 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.

¶27

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

¶28

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶29

41-Sumit/-

Kanhaiya Lal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal v. the 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

Anil Kumar Vs the University Grants Commission

Rajendra Kumar Joshi Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Natwar Lal Vs Distt.and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and Anr.

Bhinya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Rani Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Dharu Vs State of Rajasthan