Disposed

Kailash Chand Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2019CW/16694/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition invoking the precedent of Suman Jhanwar & Ors., directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' claims with similar liberal approach and pass speaking orders after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty and direction to file representation before appointing authority; directed respondent to pass speaking orders after hearing.

Kailash Chand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16694/2019

¶4

Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Nand Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Dahmee, Post Kakrdhopa, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.

¶5

Chandra Singh S/o Shri Chotu Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village And Post Govindgarh, District Alwar.

¶6

Mathu Singh S/o Shri Jajmal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Holawala, Post Dawarapur, Tehsil Thanagagi, District Alwar.

¶7

Anita D/o Shri Rohitash Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village And Post Gandala, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar.

¶8

Girvar Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Roopram Bairwa, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. B-240, Shakti Nagar, Khudanpuri Road, Distric Alwar.

¶9

Kamal Lal Meena S/o Sh. Punya Ram Meena, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Shafipura, Tehsil Bamanwas, Dist. Swaimadhopur.

¶10

Munesh Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Saray, Post Gandal, Tehsil Bamanwas, Dist. Sawaimadhopur.

¶11

Budharam Meena S/o Sh. Sukya Ram Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Lhawad, Via Shahar, Tehsil Nadoti, Dist. Karauli.

¶12

Fakir Chand S/o Sh. Jeewan Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village And Post Shimla, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu.

¶13

Kali Das S/o Sh. Mithu Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Nangliwar, Post Naugavan, Tehsil Ramgarh, Dist. Alwar.

¶14

Brijlal Meena S/o Sh. Parsadi Lal Meena,, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Dawra, Tehsil Sapotara, Dist. Karauli.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Elementary, Education, Bikaner.

¶18

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sri Ganganagar.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-16694/2019]

¶21

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar.

¶22

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jhunjhunu.

¶23

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Karauli.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) :

¶26

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order

¶27

15/11/2019

¶28

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the reliefs as mentioned in the writ petition.

¶29

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of petitioners in Suman Jhanwar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No.5405/2012, decided on 12.02.2015, whereby, this Court directed the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the appointing authority and on filing of such representation, the petitioners therein have been granted the requisite relief by the respondents and, therefore, the present petitioners may also be granted similar relief as granted in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra).

¶30

In the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra), this Court after hearing the parties, passed the following order:-

¶31

“Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority, who has issued the

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CW-16694/2019]

¶34

orders of appointment to the petitioners claiming the same relief, as purportedly given to other similar situated persons. It is expected of the respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing tot he petitioners or their authorized representative as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to them though others persons have been given such benefits. If, however, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law.”

¶35

In view of the submissions as noticed hereinbefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra).

¶36

(SABINA),J

¶37

32-Arvind/-

Kailash Chand Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

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

Anju Devi Vs Trilochan Prasad Bansal

Dayakishan Vs Municipal Board, Bhadra

Shrikishan Vs State

Sohan Singh Jhala Vs State and Ors.

Ganpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Inderjeet Vs State of Rajasthan