Allowed

Meena Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2021CW/3868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition for voluntary retirement. Applying the Dr. Kalpana Singh precedent, the Court permitted retirement but deferred the applicable date to 31.03.2022 to balance state requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic with the petitioner's rights. The impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; retirement permitted with effect from 31.03.2022; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to issue requisite order and pay benefits.

Meena Parihar Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3868/2020

¶3

Meena Parihar D/o Late Bhanwar Lal Parihar, Aged About 55 Years, Sain Colony, Chandna Bhakar, Gali No.16, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

The Director, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Addl. Director (Gazetted), Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

06/10/2021

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a coordinate Bench decision dated 16.12.2014, rendered in the case of Dr. Kalpana Singh Vs. State ofRajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.4526/2014) .

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, while conceding that the matter is covered as claimed by the petitioner, submits that looking to the unprecedented situation of spread of

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-3868/2020]

¶19

pandemic, at least a period of six months be granted to the State for acceptance of petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Dr. Kalpana Singh’s case (supra).

¶21

The judgment of Dr. Kalpana Singh (supra) shall apply in the present case and the petitioner shall be permitted to be voluntarily retired. However, while striking a balance between State’s requirement on account of COVID-19 vis-a-vis petitioner’s will to leave, it is hereby ordered that respondent-State shall make petitioner’s voluntary retirement applicable w.e.f. 31.03.2022.

¶22

The writ petition stands allowed in above terms. The impugned order dated 28.01.2020 (Annex.-4) is quashed and set aside.

¶23

The respondents shall issue requisite order in this regard forthwith and all consequential benefits shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶24

The writ petition stands allowed in above terms. Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶25

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶26

218-Sachin/-

Meena Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Parihar 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

Dilbag Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ruchika Arora Vs State of Rajasthan

Gautam Lal Dodiyar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan