Disposed

Hariram Gurjar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2018CW/943/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concerns a writ petition regarding seniority claims. The court did not decide the substantive claim but directed the respondents to consider a representation within a specified time frame and dispose of the writ proceedings accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation on seniority within specified time and dispose of writ proceedings.

Hariram Gurjar 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 Writ Petition No. 943 / 2018

¶3

Hariram Gurjar S/o Prabhulal Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village- Sedariya, Post- Dehlod, Teh- Newai, Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director (Secondary Education), Bikaner.

¶8

The Dy. Director (Secondary) Education Department, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Dass

¶11

For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶13

16/01/2018

¶14

Though the claim of the petitioner is with reference to claim for seniority. However, he submits that some of the identical factual matrix in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. : SBCWP No. 7283/2014, decided on 16^th July, 2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court permitted an opportunity of representation to the petitioners therein (Manoj Khandelwal & Ors.)

¶15

It is further urged 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.

¶16

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-943/2018]

¶19

proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents within two weeks.

¶20

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondent-Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, along with a copy of this order, who shall after verifying the facts of the case of the petitioner, shall consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law; preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶21

In case, claim of the petitioner is found covered by the adjudication referred to and relied upon in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra); the petitioner too would be entitle for benefits on notional basis.

¶22

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶24

Pooja/108

Hariram Gurjar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram Gurjar 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

Smt Savita Vs Chandra Prakash Vedwal

Nand Singh Vs Bhoo Swami and Ors.

Sunil Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Yuvraj Singh Vs State

Gopal Lal Vs State

Sahdev Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.