Dismissed

Laxmi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2022CW/4690/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 19 contractual employees challenging the termination of their services due to the adoption of a new centralized pension system, noting they failed to prove replacement by new employees and the petition was delayed beyond permissible limits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and not entertained due to delay; no order was passed in the suit.

Laxmi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4690/2020

¶3

Laxmi D/o Shri Kalu Charpota, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Bansdi, Post Ramgarh, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

¶4

Talvinder Singh S/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Near Old Truck Union Road, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

¶5

Phool Chand Sain S/o Shri Mali Ram Sain, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 03, Near Fci Godown, Haspur, Shri Madhopur District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶6

Harkesh Prajapat S/o Shri Dharm Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Gaddi Mohalla, Balghat, Tehsil Toda Bheem, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

¶7

Majid Khan S/o Shri Babu Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Chhimpa Mohalla, Chhabra, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶8

Dinesh Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Satyanarayan Gautam, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Pinjara Gali, Kunj Chowk, Mangrol District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶9

Abhishek Gautam S/o Shri Ghanshyam Gautam, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Brahmpuri, Ward No. 11, Anta, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶10

Gajendra Singh Kushwaha S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ratanpura Road, Chhipa Barod, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶11

Monika Kumari Sain D/o Shri Satyanarayan, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Gajarati Mohalla, Indragarh, District Bundi (Rajasthan).

¶12

Virendra Singh S/o Shri Chaurji, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Dhavali, Ranipura, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

¶13

Dayawati Mewara W/o Shri Nand Kishore Mewara, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of House No. 207, Backside Of Rice Meel, Nayapura, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶14

Durgesh Pareta S/o Shri Gopal Pareta, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Soni Mohalla, Aklera, Jhalawar (Rajasthan).

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-4690/2020]

¶17

Manish Kumar S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Kota Road, Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶18

Praveen Jangid S/o Shri Nand Kishore Jangid, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Neelkanth Colony, Anta, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶19

Radheshyam S/o Shri Budhiprakash, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Mamoni, Mundiyar, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶20

Sanjeev Sharma S/o Shri Chandramohan Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Oil Factory, Backside Of Nagrik Bank, Ramnagar Colony, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶21

Amrit Lal Nagar S/o Shri Omprakash Nagar, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Nagar Mohalla, Ammapura, Near Vinayak Nagar, Ward No. 4, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶22

Bharat Vaishnav S/o Shri Birdhilal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 4, Kishanganj, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶23

Mukesh Nama S/o Shri Devkinandan Nama, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Near Chhipa Mandir, Chhabra, District Baran (Rajasthan).

¶24

----Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Labour And Employment Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶27

The Labour Commissioner, Labour and Employment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶28

The Director, Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶29

The Additional Director (Administration), Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶30

The Joint Director (Treasury), Department of Treasury and Accounts, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶31

The Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur.

¶32

The Treasury Officer, Banswara (Rajasthan).

¶33

The Treasury Officer, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CW-4690/2020]

¶36

The Treasury Officer, Bundi (Rajasthan).

¶37

The Treasury Officer, Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶38

The Treasury Officer, Jhalawar (Rajasthan).

¶39

The Treasury Officer, Karauli (Rajasthan).

¶40

The Treasury Officer, Baran (Rajasthan).

¶41

The Treasury Officer, Kota (Rajasthan).

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Vishnoi for Mr. Trilok Joshi For Respondent(s) : None present

¶44

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶45

02/09/2022

¶46

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2020, whereby the new centralized system had been adopted by the Department for the pension purposes and therefore the services of the petitioners who were working on contractual basis through a placement agency were sought to be terminated.

¶47

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of the petitioners are being replaced by another set of contractual employees and therefore, their rights deserve to be protected.

¶48

No document in support of the said submission has been placed on record which could prove the fact that the Department is employing other contractual employees in pursuance to the order dated 04.05.2020. Therefore, no case as set out by the petitioners is made out in the present writ petition. Moreover, the services of the petitioners have been terminated in the month of

¶49

(4 of 4)

¶50

[CW-4690/2020]

¶51

May 2020 and the defects in the file were not removed till July 2022. Therefore, no order till date has been passed in the present writ petition. In view of the said fact also, the present writ petition cannot be entertained now after a period of two years of the termination of the services of the petitioners. Even on merits no material is available on record to suggest that the petitioners are being sought to be replaced by any other set of contractual employees.

¶52

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

¶53

(REKHA BORANA),J 3-Dharmendra/-

Laxmi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalmani Tripathi Vs State and Anr.

Deepak Kumar Khatri Vs State and Ors.

Pushpa Solanki Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamta Panwar Vs State and Ors.

Ronak Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan