Allowed

Himanshu Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2020CW/935/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Writ Petition, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the petitioners' request for appointment as Junior Engineers and benefits under Rule 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1967 and consequential benefits, relying on the precedent Vimla Devi Saini and its subsequent affirmation.

What did the court decide?

Directions to grant benefit of Rule 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1967 immediately and consider petitioners for appointment as Junior Engineer Degree Holders with all consequential benefits.

Himanshu Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 935/2019

¶3

Himanshu Khandelwal S/o Giriraj Prasad Khandelwal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 307, Rajat Vihar, Near St Emanuel Mission School, Sojat Road, Pali.

¶4

Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh,, Aged About 27 Years, R/o House No. C-17, Sector-6L, Ward No. 43, Hanumangarh Junction.

¶5

Vinesh Saini S/o Brijendra Saini,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Behind The Vidyapeeth Adarsh Colony, Kalla Ka Golla, Bashavar, Bharatpur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Chief Engineer (Administration), And Technical Member, Rwssmb, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni for Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

21/07/2020

¶16

Present petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-

¶17

(i) the impugned inaction of the respondents in not granting the relief under Rule 6(1)(4) may kindly be deprecated and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant benefit of Rule 6(1)(4) of the Rules of 1967 to the petitioners with immediate effect;

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-935/2019]

¶20

(ii) the respondents may be directed to consider the Degree acquired by the petitioners and include the petitioners in the list and accord them appointment as Junior Engineer Degree Holders with all consequential benefits viz; pay fixation, seniority, further promotion etc. etc.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision dated 20.11.2017 passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.7330/2016 (Vimla Devi Saini Vs. State & Anr.).

¶22

Mr. Rishi Soni, associate to Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG, is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of decision dated 20.11.2017, rendered in the case of Vimla Devi Saini (supra), duly affirmed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 30.09.2019.

¶24

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

74-skm/-

Himanshu Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Khandelwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Narain Lal Vs State

Khana Ram Chotiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Swami Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kapil Jaiman Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Shrivastava Vs State of Rajasthan