Allowed

Murari Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2018CW/16232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's claim for selection grade and pay-scale fixation based on service years. The court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent on financial loss as inapplicable here due to no third-party rights affected and directed implementation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to selection grade and pay-scale fixation on completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service retroactively from date of regular appointment; respondents to complete exercise within th

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16232/2018

¶3

Murari Lal S/o Shri Suwa Lal, Aged About 84 Years, Vpo Bedana Via Gudabalotan, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Secretary, Finance Department, Government O Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Director, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Sawasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

¶9

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

¶10

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Shahpura

¶11

Joint Director, Pension And Pensioner Welfare Department, Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal for Mr. K.L. Thukur, AAG

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶15

Order

¶16

26/11/2018

¶17

Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General puts in appearance on behalf of respondents.

¶18

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)

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-16232/2018]

¶21

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).

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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).

¶25

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:-

¶26

“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.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CW-16232/2018]

¶29

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.”

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶34

133-AK Chouhan/-

Murari Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal 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

Mukesh Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhudev Sharma Vs the M.D. Rsrtc and Anr.

Roop Lal Damor Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Durga Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.