Disposed

Ali Mohammed Son of Shri Ajmat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2021CW/2517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur disposed of a writ petition seeking seniority and service benefits. Relying on Suman Jhanwar, the court directed respondents to grant relief to petitioners if they approach the appointing authority with appropriate representation.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to file representation before appointing authority; direction to respondents to pass speaking orders if similar benefits are not extended.

Ali Mohammed Son of Shri Ajmat Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2517/2019

¶3

Ali Mohammed Son Of Shri Ajmat, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Bhandara, Panchayat Samati, Kaman, District Bharatpur

¶4

Abdul Sakur S/o Shri Jabar Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Charan Pahari (Angravali) Panchayat Samati Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶5

Syorav Khan S/o Shri Nijar Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Gavdi, Panchayat Samati, Kaman Distt. Bharatpur.

¶6

Sher Mohammed S/o Shri Bhure Khan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ghaghawadi, Panchayat Samati, Pahari Distt. Bharatpur

¶7

Usman Khan S/o Shri Juhru Khan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Ubhaka Panchayat Samati Pahari, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶8

Umar Mohammed S/o Shri Chandar Khan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Kanchanner, Panchayat Samati Pahari Distt. Bharatpur.

¶9

Samsuddin S/o Shri Juhru Khan, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Bas Dayna, Panchayat Samati Nagar Distt. Bharatpur

¶10

Ishab Khan S/o Shri Jummal Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Uchera, Tehsil Kaman Distt. Bharatpur

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶14

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. The District Education Officer - Cum - Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Bharatpur

¶15

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Zila Parishad, Bharatpur

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal.
For Respondent(s)	:

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶19

Order

¶20

21/09/2021

¶21

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CW-2517/2019]

¶24

“i) to direct the respondents to count the seniority of petitioner and grant all service benefits from the date on similarly situated persons were granted same benefits along with all consequential benefits;

¶25

ii) Cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of petitioner;

¶26

iii) and may pass any other order (s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

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).

¶28

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

¶29

“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 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.”

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CW-2517/2019]

¶32

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).

¶33

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶34

84-PRADEEP KUMAR LIMBA /686

Ali Mohammed Son of Shri Ajmat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Mohammed Son of Shri Ajmat 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

Anita Yadav Vs State of Raj Andors

Birbal Ram Meghwal S/O Keshraram Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Davendra Kumar S/O Mool Chand Jangir Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamrun Nisha D/O Mohammed Siddik Ansari Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rohitash Kumar Choudhary S/O Raghunath Prasad Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Singh Son of Shri Himmat Singh, Vs the State of Rajasthan