Dismissed

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/O Shri Harnath Gurjar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2021CW/330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition by following the observations in Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra), directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding seniority and service benefits without merit.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with direction to make representation for seniority relief similar to Shyam Sunder Sharma case within three months.

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/O Shri Harnath… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 330/2021

¶3

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/o Shri Harnath Gurjar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village And Post Maheshra, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶8

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Sharma. For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Order

¶13

10/09/2021

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order in Shyam Sunder Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4687/2014 , decided on 11.08.2014 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of and with similar observations as made in the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra).

¶15

In the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court inter alia directed as under:

¶16

“Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to make

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-330/2021]

¶19

a representation to respondent no.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, along-with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioner for extending him the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent no.2decides to place the petitioner above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioner would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but he would be entitled only to notional benefits.”

¶20

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra).

¶21

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶22

13-SACHIN KHUSHWAHA /685

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/O Shri Harnath Gurjar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Prasad Gurjar S/O Shri Harnath Gurjar v. the 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

Navneet Singh Vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Magharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharda Devi D/O Sh. Krishan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Santosh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Krishna Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vardhman Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

Prabhu Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.