Allowed

Smt. Suresh Kumari W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Bhaskar a Sawant

Rajasthan HC28 Oct 2021CCP/86/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition challenging failure to comply with orders to count a specific service period for pension benefits, the High Court held the authority's error was not willful disobedience. The court quashed the improper orders and directed the immediate issuance of corrected orders within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-(authorities) directed to issue modified orders treating entire period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 as qualifying service for pension, gratuity, and pensionary benefits within 45 days.

Smt. Suresh Kumari W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 86/2020

¶3

¶4

D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 848/2018

¶5

¶6

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 285/2015

¶7

Smt. Suresh Kumari W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 68 Years, R/o 533-A, Gali No. 4, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) (Since Deceased)

¶8

1/1. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Meghraj Sharma, aged about 75 Years, R/o 533-A, Gali No. 4, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.(Raj)

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bhaskar A Sawant, Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)

¶12

Himanshu Gupta, Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶13

Sahab Singh, District Education Officer Elementary Bharatpur (Raj)

¶14

Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶15

State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini Additional Advocate General with Ms. Srijana Shreshtha Advocate. Mr. Gopal Singh, Additional District Education Officer, Bharatpur present in person.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

(2 of 3)

[CCP-86/2020]

Order

28/10/2021

Heard.

This contempt petition arises out of order dated 02.04.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court, which modified earlier order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of petition filed by the petitioner in connection with her service benefits.

¶25

The order passed by the learned Single Judge was modified by the Division Bench. The period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 has been directed to be counted towards the period of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. For the purpose of payment of salary, only period of 77 days from 29.07.1998 to 13.10.1998 has been accepted.

¶26

After going through the reply and three orders, which have been passed by the authority in purported compliance of the order passed by this Court, namely, order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure-A/1), order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-A/2) and order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure-A/3), it appears that order with regard to payment of salary for 77 days has been complied with. The concerned officer, who passed the orders, did not correctly understand the spirit of the order of the Court. The order is very clear that the entire period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 has to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and pensionary benefits. That would mean that the entire period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 shall be taken into consideration as qualifying service. To that extent, order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure-A/2) and pay fixation by subsequent order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure-A/3) are against

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CCP-86/2020]

¶29

the mandate of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the petitioner.

¶30

We are, however, of the view that this mistake cannot be said to be an act of willful disobedience, but only an error of judgment on the part of the authority, which needs to be corrected at the earliest.

¶31

This contempt petition is, therefore, disposed off at this stage observing that the respondents-authorities are required to immediately issue a modified order stating that the period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 shall be treated as qualifying period of service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and pensionary benefits. We hasten to add here that subsequent order passed on 29.09.2020 making pay fixation on erroneous assumption that only 77 days have to be included, is also not in accordance with the direction of this Court, therefore, a revised pay fixation order, treating entire period from 29.07.1998 to 10.09.2002 will have to be passed at the earliest.

¶32

Since, Shri Gopal Singh, Additional District Education Officer, Bharatpur is present today in the Court, we direct that modified orders and all consequential benefits be extended in favour of the petitioner within outer limit of 45 days from today. In case orders are not passed, as directed above, it would be open for the petitioner to revive contempt petition.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶35

MANOJ NARWANI /47

Smt. Suresh Kumari W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Bhaskar a Sawant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Suresh Kumari W/O Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma v. Bhaskar a Sawant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Dayma Son of Shri Veer Singh Dayma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Sharma (Advocate) S/O. Shri Shyam Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Hans Kumar Sharma S/O Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Praveen Shankar (Rjs)

Madhu Sudan Sharma S/O Shri Kanti Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Teju Ram Gurjar S/O Shri Sadul Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Sharma Son of Shri Bal Kishan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan