Disposed

Ram Lal Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2018CW/7950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition raising controversy regarding the enhancement of honorarium for Preraks. Relieving on existing Division Bench directions, the court directed petitioners to submit a comprehensive representation and reserved directions for the State-respondents to decide it within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; direction to petitioners to submit representation; direction to State to consider representation within eight weeks.

Ram Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 7950/2018

¶3

Ram Lal Meena S/o Shri Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 49 Years, R/o V.p.o. Gambhira, Block Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 3-10-2013 At Gambhira Center.)

¶4

Maya Meena D/o Shri Rambilas Meena, R/o V.p.o. Samidhi, Block Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 11-8-2011 At Samidhi Center.)

¶5

Khanji Lal Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, R/o V.p.o. Bosriya, Block Uniyara, District Bundi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 15-4-2011 At Bosriya Center.)

¶6

Kishan Lal Meena S/o Shri Rampal Meena, R/o V.p.o. Jhundwa, Block Uniyara, District Bundi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 15-4-2011 At Jhundwa Center.)

¶7

Archana Jangid W/o Shri Ramray Jangid, R/o V.p.o. Bosriya, Block Uniyara, District Bundi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 16-12-2011 At Bosriya Center.)

¶8

Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p.o. Undra, Block Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 1-7-2004 At Undra Center.)

¶9

Hadmat Singh S/o Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o V.p.o Telpur, Block Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.) (Working As Prerak Since 14-8-2004 At Telpur Center.)

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan.

¶13

Director Literacy And Continuing Education, Shiksha Sankul, Vth Block, Ist Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶14

Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-7950/2018]

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶20

Order

¶21

13/04/2018

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical controversy has already been raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of intra-court appeals lead case being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1575/2014: Director, Literacy & Ors. Versus Nal Singh Jat & Ors., vide order dated 11^th May, 2016, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, observing thus:

¶23

“We accordingly dispose of these appeals with the modification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. These appeals are disposed of with the direction to the State to adequately enhance the honorarium/remuneration of the petitioner-nonappellants and for that they will take into consideration the different orders/instructions issued for revision of the remuneration of those working under different schemes. The enhancement therein is on yearly basis. The substance of the direction aforesaid is that the petitioner – non appellants should not stagnate on the same pay. The order passed subsequent to the judgment specifying the working hours would not be taken into consideration as has been stayed by the learned Single Judge in other writ petition. The exercise, as directed, would be carried out within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision for enhancement of the remuneration/honorarium would apply from the date of the judgment.”

¶24

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide

¶25

(3 of 3) [CW-7950/2018]

¶26

the representation of the petitioners in the backdrop of the observation made by the Division Bench in the case of Nal Singh Jat & Ors. (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶27

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Nal Singh Jat & Ors. (supra).

¶28

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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶29

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

¶30

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶31

SS/168

Ram Lal Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Meena and Ors. 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

Murlidhar Raigar Vs Director Secondary Education and Anr.

Rakesh Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Reena Joshi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sohan Lal Verma Vs Chairman R S R T C and Ors.

Mahaveer Prasad Gurjar and Ors. Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Smt Sarita Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.