Disposed

Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CW/1746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The coordinate Bench disposed of writ petitions regarding regularization and benefits for Class IV employees. Declaring entitlement to regularization and pension based on the Lala Ram Saini case, the Court strictly restricted the relief by following Kanhiya Lal, denying arrears of pay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners declared entitled to regularization and pension; however, relief denied for any arrears of pay resulting from Class IV pay-fixation.

Hari Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32428]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1746/2022

¶4

Hari Ram S/o Shri Nand Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Gram Panchayat Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, District Churu.

¶9

The Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Taranagar, District Churu.

¶10

The Gram Panchayat Sahawa, Through Its Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti Taranagar, District Churu.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1070/2022

¶14

Bajrang S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Ramdev Basti, Rawala Mnadi, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar.

¶19

1. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.

¶20

1. The Gram Panchayat 8Psd (B), Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Manish Tak

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶24

Order

¶25

03/10/2023

¶26

Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petitions has been set at rest

[2023:RJ-JD:32428]

[CW-1746/2022]

(2 of 3)

and decided in petitioners’ favour by a judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lala Ram Saini vs. The Stateof Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11509/2011) .

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are entitled for all benefits as has been given in the case of Lala Ram Saini (supra).

¶32

Mr. Tak, learned counsel for the respondent – State, on the other hand submitted that considering the Lala Ram Saini’s case (supra), another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2022 passed in the case of Kanhiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6469/2020) has restricted the monetary benefits by observing that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for Class IV employees. He prayed that the similar order as has been passed in the case of Kanhiya Lal (supra) be passed in the present writ petition.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering that in the subsequent decision in the case of KanhiyaLal (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has restricted petitioners’ benefits, after noticing the judgment in the case of Lala Ram Saini (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to restrict the petitioners’ relief as has been done in the case of Kanhiya Lal (supra).

¶34

The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of while declaring the petitioners entitled for regularization in services from the date of initial appointment as Class-IV employee.

[2023:RJ-JD:32428]

[CW-1746/2022]

(3 of 3)

The respondents shall release the petitioner’s pension and other retiral dues while fixing the petitioner’s salary as per adjudication made in the case of Lala Ram Saini (supra). The petitioners, however, shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of pay as a consequence of pay-fixation in the pay-scale applicable for ClassIV employees.

¶39

All interlocutory applications so also stay application stand disposed of accordingly.

¶40

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petitions, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petitions and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

¶41

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶42

275-276-Shahenshah/-

Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Katara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Aaidan Ram Suthar Vs Hapu Ram

Varun Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Deputy Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) Vs Gopal Singh