Allowed

Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2018CW/5701/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent State to fix the petitioner in a specific pay-scale with selection grade based on years of service. The court distinguished earlier precedent regarding delayed claims due to lack of third-party rights and continuing injury.

What did the court decide?

Fixation in pay-scale Rs.975-1720, 12002050 and 1640-2900 (5500-9000) with selection grade from date of regular appointment; exercise to be completed within three months.

Prahlad Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 5701/2018

¶3

Prahlad Singh S/o Sh. Moti Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village PostGarasani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Raj..

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Additional Director Administration, Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Choudhary for Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

11/12/2018

¶15

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 be granted relief as granted in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra).

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-5701/2018]

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that

¶18

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 has raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to him be restricted.

¶19

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

¶20

In so far as the relief being claimed by the petitioner 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).

¶21

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:-

¶22

“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.

¶23

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.”

¶24

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-5701/2018]

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶31

63-PKS/-

Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Singh v. State of Rajasthan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Khan Pathan Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Babu Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Devi Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Prasad and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Neelam Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan