Allowed

Laddu Lal Jangid S/O (Late) Shri Hajari Lal Jangid v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2021CW/5037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench allowed a writ petition filed by retired government employees seeking directors of selection grades and enhanced benefits. The court held that restricting relief due to belatedness was untenable as the injury was continuous and no third-party rights were affected, ordering relief in accordance with prior High Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to allow selection grades to petitioners on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service in terms of Dadam Das judgment.

Laddu Lal Jangid S/O (Late) Shri Hajari… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5037/2021

¶3

Laddu Lal Jangid S/o (Late) Shri Hajari Lal Jangid, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Plot No. 915, Vigyan Nagar, Fci Godown, Ranthambhor Road, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 17.07.1971 And Retirement On 31.01.2012 As Mpw)

¶4

Chhotelal Sharma S/o (Late) Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 2B-17, Vikas Nagar, Bundi, District Bundi. (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 20.07.1971 And Retirement On 30.04.2008 As Mpw)

¶5

Premshankar Vaisnav S/o (Late) Shri Kaluram Vaisnav, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Behind Old Power House, Baharali, District Bundi (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 17.04.1973 And Retirement On 30.11.2010 As Mpw)

¶6

Mohammad Shabbir S/o (Late) Shri Peer Mohammad, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Shekhapada, Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 22.02.1973 And Retirement On 31.01.2013 As Mpw)

¶7

Brijmohan S/o (Late) Gopilal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Dabi Sadan Ke Samne Nainwa Road, Shiv Mandir Ke Pas, Matuda Road, District Bundi (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 08.02.1973 And Retirement On 31.08.2009 As Mpw)

¶8

Shamu Singh Hada S/o Shri Nand Singh Hada, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Rajput Chatrawas Ki Gali, Behind Mana Bheru Ji Bibnawa Road, District Bundi (Raj.) ( Appointment As Msw On 23.06.1972 And Retirement On 31.03.2003 As Mpw)

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

Principal Secretary To Government, Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶14

Director, Medical And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶16

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Government Hospital, Bundi (Raj.)

¶17

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Government Hospital, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(2 of 3)

[CW-5037/2021]

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

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶23

Order

¶24

20/09/2021

¶25

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in Dadam Das Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8309/2012 decided on 20.5.2013.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that though the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Dadam Das (supra), however, it is submitted that as the petitioners have raised the issue belatedly, the material relief to them be restricted.

¶27

Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648.

¶28

In so far as the relief being claimed by the petitioners is concerned, there is no dispute that the same is governed by the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dadam Das ( supra).

¶29

In so far as the plea raised by the respondents is concerned, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.11254/2016 decided on 7.10.2016 dealing with another writ petition of identical nature after noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents held as under:-

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CW-5037/2021]

¶32

“A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) shows that the same does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, no third party rights have been affected. It pertains to a financial loss which is a continuing injury to the petitioners.”

¶33

In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents regarding restricting the relief to the petitioners cannot be countenanced.

¶34

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the selection grades to the petitioners on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service in terms of the directions mentioned in the case of Dadam Das (supra).

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶36

75-SACHIN KHUSHWAHA /685

Laddu Lal Jangid S/O (Late) Shri Hajari Lal Jangid v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laddu Lal Jangid S/O (Late) Shri Hajari Lal Jangid 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

Ajay Singh Dhayal S/O Sardar Singh Dhayal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishram Gurjar Son of Shri Sundaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Dhanopia S/O Shri Hari Shankar Ji Dhanopia Vs the Principal Secretary

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