Allowed

Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2022CW/874/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the writ petition, directing respondents to grant pension and retirement benefits under the 1996 Rules with consequential benefits to petitioners, following precedent set in Durga Ram Jat and Sushila Meena.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant all benefits including pension rules 1996 and ACP with consequential benefits within three months.

Sushil Kumar Choudhary Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 874/2021

¶3

Sushil Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Vijaipal Chaudhary, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Pc-14, Ward No. 25 Punjabi City, Near Khalsa Nagar, Jassa Singh Marg, Sir Ganganagar.

¶4

Suresh Kumar Jat S/o Shri Veni Ram Jat, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Sports House, Back Side Of Girl School, V.p.o. Kheroda, District Udaipur.

¶5

Shabana Khan D/o Afzal Hussain Khan, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 121, Murshid Nagar, Sector 12, Savina, Udaipur.

¶6

Sarita Bharti D/o Shyam Sunder Bharti, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Holi Ka Chowk, Kheroda, District Udaipur.

¶7

Punjee Lal Meena S/o Shri Bheema Meena, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Dhawadiya, Post Kunthwas, Via Bhinder District Udaipur.

¶8

Babulal Choudhary S/o Shri Jassaram Chaudhary, Aged About 57 Years, Vayu Vihar Colony, Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary to The Government, Establishment (K-2) Department, Jaipur.

¶11

The Secretary, Education (Grade-Iii) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶13

The District Education Officer, Secondary-I, Udaipur.

¶14

The District Education Officer, Secondary-Ii, Udaipur.

¶15

The District Education Officer, Secondary, Sriganganagar.

¶16

The District Education Officer, Secondary, Sirohi.

¶17

The District Education Officer, Secondary, Jodhpur.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hinglaj Dan Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CW-874/2021]

¶22

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶23

Order

¶24

22/08/2022

¶25

Application seeking disposal of the writ petition in light of decided case is allowed.

¶26

The matter is taken up for orders.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present petition is similar to Durga Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9695/2014 & other connected matters, decided on 08.10.2015, which has been followed in Sushila Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10199/2019 , decided on 28.06.2022 and, therefore, the present petition may also be decided in light of the orders passed in the case of Durga Ram Jat (supra) and Sushila Meena (supra).

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objections to the said submissions made by counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

The Court in the case of Sushila Meena (supra), following order in the case of Durga Ram Jat (supra) observed and directed as under:

¶30

“In the case of Durga Ram Jat (supra), this Court inter alia came to the following conclusion:

¶31

“I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

¶32

A bare look at the order passed by the Division Bench while rejecting the appeal filed by the State would reveal that a specific directions was given that the petitioners would be permitted to join on their respective place of postings; would be entitled to actual emoluments of post only with effect from the date when they actually

¶33

(3 of 4)

¶34

[CW-874/2021]

¶35

join their duties, but for the purpose of seniority and other benefits, they shall not be placed at lesser advantageous position than those who have been allowed to join their duties in pursuance of the order issued initially in pursuance of the same selections. The said stipulation as indicated in the order of Division Bench was clearly reflected in the order of appointment dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-6), wherein it was indicated that the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits including the benefits pertaining to seniority and other benefits as granted to appointees under Order dated 05.09.2003. In view of specific direction by the Division Bench and the stipulation made in the order of appointment, their does not appear to be any reason for the respondents to treat the petitioners different from the appointees under order dated 05.09.2003, who admittedly are governed by provisions of Pension Rules, 1996.

¶36

The submission that as the petitioners joined post after coming into force of Contributory Pension Rules, 2005, therefore, they would not be entitled to relief, in view of the specific directions of the Division Bench and stipulation made in the order dated 24.02.2005 such a submission is wholly baseless.

¶37

This Court in the case of Madusudan (supra) while dealing with a similar nature controversy held as under:-

¶38

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was also granted seniority as well as other benefits from the year 1998-1999. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated person – Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme, however, the petitioner has not been granted the said benefits only for the reason that the appointment was granted to him in the year 2005. When the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy in the year 1998-1999 and was also assigned seniority from the year 19981999, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of the old pension scheme to the petitioner applicable is not tenable. It is also noticed that when the similarly situated person was granted the said benefit, though appointed

¶39

(4 of 4)

¶40

[CW-874/2021]

¶41

after the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents are not justifying in denying the said benefit to the petitioner.

¶42

In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the petitioner as per old pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.”

¶43

In view of above discussions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits including benefit of Pension Rules, 1996 and ACP with all consequential benefits to the petitioners as indicated in the order passed by the Division Bench and order dated 24.02.2005 (Annex-6).

¶44

The exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents.

¶45

No order as to costs.”

¶46

In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with similar directions as given in the case of Durga Ram Jat (supra).”

¶47

The petition filed by the petitioners is also decided in light of and with similar directions as issued in the case of Sushila Meena (supra)

¶48

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶49

178-Dharmendra/-

Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Choudhary 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

Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Karm. Samiti, Vs National Insurance Com.and Ors.

Subani Bano Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Amarati Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur