Allowed

Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2019CW/10334/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed connected writ petitions concerning the withholding of retiral dues and pension. Relying on a prior judgment in a connected matter, the Court disposed of the present petitions, directing the Director of Personnel (DOP) to take a decision on the dissent notes regarding the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Director of Personnel to take a decision on dissent notes within one month; if exonerated, pension and retiral benefits to be released.

Madan Mohan Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9976/2017

Prahlad Bairwa

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Ors

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10334/2017

Madan Mohan Sharma

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deendayal Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Chandel, Addl.G.C. Mr. Bhagawat Singh

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶17

Judgment / Order

¶18

02/12/2019

¶19

Learned counsel for the parties submit that issued involved in the present writ petitions stands covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Khemraj Meena Versus Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 9959/2017 on 07.11.2019.

¶20

In view of the statement made, the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed as joint inquiry was initiated against the petitioners for which order was passed by this Court on 7.11.2019 in Khemraj Meena (supra), which reads as under:

¶21

“1. The petitioner has retired in 2014. A joint enquiry was initiated wherein the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 30.03.2015 and the Enquiry Officer found that no case is made out of misconduct as against the

¶22

[CW-9976/2017]

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

petitioner. Upon enquiry report which was submitted in 2015, the DOP has sent a notice of dissent on 18.01.2018 to the petitioner and reply to the same has already been submitted by the petitioner but no decision has been taken by the respondents thereafter.

¶25

Learned Counsel submits that the entire retiral dues of the petitioner are withheld and he is only receiving the provisional pension. No decision is being taken in the enquiry.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the respondent-DOP submits that as the enquiry is relating to 34 persons and dissent note has been sent to all the delinquents, the DOP wants time to decide on the representation made against the dissent note.

¶27

I have considered the submissions and find that the petitioner is retired in 2014. He has a vested right to his pension which can only be withheld to the extent as laid down under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958. The enquiry was pending. However, the enquiry report was submitted in 2015 but the DOP has issued a dissent letter on 18.01.2018 to which reply has already been filed. Almost 1 years and 11 months have elapsed since then. Merely because there are other co-delinquents against whom dissent note has also been sent, the DOP cannot sit over the decision so far as it relates to the petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly, the DOP is directed to take a decision on the dissent note and representation made by the petitioner within a period of one month and communicated to the petitioner so far as his role is concerned. If the petitioner is exonerated, his pension and retiral benefits shall be released. However, if a decision is taken otherwise, petitioner shall be free to challenge the same afresh.

¶29

With the said observation, the writ petition is disposed of.”

¶30

Aforesaid judgment will also apply mutatis - mutandis on the present cases. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

[CW-9976/2017]

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.

¶34

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶35

SUNIL SOLANKI /19/27-28

Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Sharma 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

M/S N.G.K. Transport Co. (Regd.) through Authorized Signatory and Managing Partner Vs Managing Director Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Praveen Parashar S/O Sh. Dinesh Parashar Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

Smt Neelam Goyal Wife of Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Saini Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kanhaiya Lal Gupta Vs State Water Resources Dep Ors.

Muralidhar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.