Dismissed

Ashiq Ali v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2020SAW/324/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order quashing a writ petition where the Single Judge held that disputed questions of fact regarding a deposit for retirement benefits precluded judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the writ petition filed by the appellant is maintained as dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Ashiq Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 324/2017

¶3

¶4

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1346/2017

¶5

Ashiq Ali S/o Shri Sher Ali, aged about 61 years, by caste Muslim, resident of Khanna Colony, Tilak Nagar, Hindaun City District Karauli (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioner/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶9

Treasury Officer of the Treasury, Sawaimadhopur Distt. Sawaimadhopur.

¶10

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Kaushik. For Respondents No. : Ms. Archana with Mr. Yashodhar 1 and 2 Pandey and Mr. Mehul Harkawat on behalf of Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. : Mr. Ajay Gupta. 3

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

18/02/2020

¶16

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had taken loan in the year 1999. However, the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-324/2017]

¶20

installments were not deducted from the salary of the appellant by the Drawing and Disbursing Authority for two years. Appellant has been penalised for the fault committed by the Drawing and Disbursing Authority.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was liable to be upheld.

¶22

Dispute in the present case relates to Rs. 1,20,284/-. It is the case of the appellant that the said amount had been illegally got deposited from the appellant at the time of issuance of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits.

¶23

Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, held that disputed questions of fact could not be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Appellant had voluntarily deposited the amount-in-question and had thereafter got No Objection Certificate and then, retiral benefits were released to him. The question as to whether appellant was required to pay Rs. 1,20,284/- to the respondents or not, is a disputed question of fact. Learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly held that disputed questions of fact could not be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and appellant was given liberty to avail remedy available to him as per law.

¶24

The reasons given by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, are sound reasons and call for no interference.

Dismissed.

(3 of 3)

[SAW-324/2017]

The amount to the tune of Rs. 1,20,284/- deposited by Respondent No. 1 and 2 and invested in FDR be released to Respondents No. 1 and 2 forthwith.

¶29

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶30

(SABINA),J

¶31

MANOJ NARWANI /43

Ashiq Ali v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashiq Ali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulochana D/O Shri Richpal Singh W/O Shri Mahesh Kumar Vs Shri Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Pema Ram Dhaka

Villagers of Village Chandpur Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh Vs Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jalday Department

Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chandra Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Prasad S/O Shri Trilok Chand Vs Seema Choudhary, Executive Officer

Smt. Hema @ Soniya W/O Rajeev Sapra D/O Kishan Chand Bhatia Vs Rajeev Sapra S/O Shri Parmanand Sapra