Allowed

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2018CW/18838/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition declaring him eligible for pay protection and a specific pay scale effective from the date of absorption. Impugned orders were quashed, and consequential benefits with interest were granted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner declared eligible for pay scale Rs. 8000-13500 and post-retiral benefits with 9% interest from 01-01-2017.

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha Vs State of Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 18838/2017

¶3

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha Son Of Shri Munshi Lal Kulshrestha, Caste- Kayastha, Aged About 60 Years, Gram Sewak (Retd.), Gram Panchayat- Didawata, Panchayat Samiti - Phagi, District Jaipur Resident Of 267/634, Sector - 26, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayatiraj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Zila Parishad, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶8

The Block Development Officer (Vikas Adhikari), Panchayat Samiti - Phagi, District Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Pension Pensioners Welfare Department, Directorate-Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Saksena Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma G.C., Mr. Anurag Sharma AAG & Mr. Rishipal Agarwal Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶13

Order

¶14

19/04/2018

¶15

Petitioner who was working on the post of Production Assistant in the office of Sriganganagar, Co-Operative Cotton Complex Ltd., Sriganganagar, came to be absorbed in the

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

Panchayati Raj Department (Respondent No.1), vide order dt. 6^th June, 2003, on the post of Gram Sewak.

¶18

Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to his pay protection, at the time of his absorption in the Panchayati Raj Department and further to declare him eligible, for grant of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 (9650/-) with effect from 10^th June, 2003 i.e. the date of joining in the Panchayati Raj Department. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of post retiral benefits along with interest @ Rs. 9% with effect from 1^st January, 2017, till the date of actual payment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Saksena Adv. submits that this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6911/2015 (Jairam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) has decided the similar controversy by order dt. 12^th April, 2017. The operative portion of the order dt. 12^th April, 2017 is reproduced hereunder:-

¶20

“In the case of M. M. Bhavsar (supra), in somewhat similar circumstances and factual matrix the option of the incumbent to lower category of post under the State with pay protection was not treated as waiver of protection of pay to which incumbent was entitled on the date of absorption. In the case at hand, the petitioner opted for absorption under the Panchayati Raj Department on the post of ‘Gram Sewak’ in the backdrop of a specific contemplation as to pay protection accorded to him vide order/communication dated 21st June, 2000. The fact that the petitioner continued in the same protected pay scale and retired attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2016, is also not in dispute. Thus, while the petitioner was absorbed on the post of ‘Gram Sewak’ a post in lower pay scale but with pay protection, would not amount to his waiver of the protection of pay accorded by the Staterespondents vide order dated 21st June, 2000.

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

No other point was raised by the counsel for the parties for consideration of this Court.

¶23

For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

¶24

Impugned orders dated 20th October, 2010 (Annexure-6), 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure-7) and 25th March, 2011 (Annexure9), qua the petitioner; are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner would be entitled all consequential benefits.

¶25

No costs.”

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench has also passed identical orders in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19650/2017 (Thomas Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) dt. 20^th November, 2017 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16917/2017 (Hemraj Jatoliya Vs. State of Rajsthan and Ors.) dt. 31^st October, 2017. Counsel submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner also requires to be adjudicated on the same lines.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, do not dispute the legal proposition, which has been settled by this Court in the above mentioned three cases.

¶28

The present writ petition filed by the petitioner also deserves to be allowed in the terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Jairaj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra).

¶29

The impugned orders dt. 2^nd October, 2010 (Annex. 8) & 9^th March, 2012 (Annex. 11), qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the petitioner would be entitled to get all the benefits along with interest @ 9% with effect from 1^st January, 2017 till the date of actual payment is made to the petitioner, as has been passed by this Court in the case of Thomas Varghese (supra).

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

The said exercise may be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶33

Monika/53

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Kulshrestha 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyawati Vs Ravi Kumar

Ramji Lal Karol Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Tarachand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Laxman Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagdish@Bhola Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp