Disposed

Vishnu Kumar Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2018CW/4910/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged discriminatory denial of notional benefits available to a similarly situated person, citing Article 14. The High Court closed the limited writ proceedings, directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation for a reasoned decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address a comprehensive representation; State-respondents to decide within three months.

Vishnu Kumar Meena 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. 4910/2018

¶3

Vishnu Kumar Meena S/o Shri Chatru Ram Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Rampurabas, Post Chawandiya, Via Bassi, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Presently Working On The Post Of Teacher Grade-Iii Level-2, At Govt. Upper Primary School Charanwas, P.s. Bassi, District Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur

¶9

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Dayal Meena For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

08/03/2018

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset submits that identically situated person namely Mr. Vinod Kumar Chobisa, has been accorded notional benefits from 28^th January, 2008, whereas the petitioners, who were identically situated, have been declined the same treatment and thus, the action of the State-respondents is discriminatory and in violation to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Learned counsel further submits that for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are

¶17

(2 of 2) [CW-4910/2018]

¶18

directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame in the backdrop of order dated 7^th May, 2013, wherein benefits on notional basis have been accorded to Mr. Vinod Kumar Chobisa.

¶19

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents within two weeks hereinafter.

¶20

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶21

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶22

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶23

SS/162

Vishnu Kumar Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Meena 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rohitash Singh Vs Ashok Singh

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Daya Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Santosh Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.