Disposed

Tarun Kumar Gautam v. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2018CW/5862/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of notional benefits granted to another identically situated person as discriminatory under Article 14. Court dismissed petition, directing petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation for a reasoned decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State-respondents to consider and decide a comprehensive representation from the petitioner within three months via a reasoned and speaking order.

Tarun Kumar Gautam Vs Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5862/2018

¶3

Tarun Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Gautam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Post Office, Saray Shahi Chhata, District Mathura (U.p.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Director, Primary Education, Bikaner.

¶8

District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Bharatpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. K. Tiwari For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

20/03/2018

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner, who was identically situated, has been declined the same treatment and thus, the action of the Staterespondents is discriminatory and in violation to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame in the backdrop of order dated 7^th May, 2013, wherein benefits on

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-5862/2018]

¶18

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 petitioner 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

Pooja/326

Tarun Kumar Gautam v. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Gautam v. Principal Secretary 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

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar Poswal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bharti Sharma Vs State Education Department Ors.

Ramesh Chand Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sandeep Varma Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.