Dismissed

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CW/1975/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion to Trasor post based on 2018-19 committee recommendation delayed beyond four years. Court observed respondents admitted lack of formal order due to unsigned minutes but would consider the case in next meeting. Petition disposed with direction to consider petitioner for promotion. Relief: Consideration in next meeting.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider petitioner for promotion to Trasor post for 2018-19 vacancies in next departmental promotion meeting and pass appropriate orders.

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010736]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1975/2020

¶4

Balram S/o Late Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Plot No. 68, Tempo Stand, Main Road, Shivaji Park, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust (U.I.T.), Near Bhagat Singh Circle, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

12/05/2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶15

following prayer:

¶16

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to:

¶17

i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of Trasor in pursuance of recommendation of DPC 2018-19 with all consequential benefits. ii) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

[2023/RJJP/010736]

[CW-1975/2020]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a committee of Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar recommended the name of the petitioner for his promotion on the post of Trasor for the vacancies of the year 2018-19 vide Departmental Promotion Meeting dated 21.08.2018. Counsel submits that even after expiry of more than four years no decision has been taken by the authorities for promotion of the petitioner on the post of Trasor1 for the vacancies of the year 2018-19, so appropriate orders by passed directing the authorities.

¶23

Perusal of the Para 4 of the reply indicates that the Chairman did not sign the minutes of meeting dated 21.08.2018, hence no formal order of promotion was passed. However, it has also been averred in the reply that the case of the petitioner would be considered in the ensuing departmental promotion meeting and after consideration the order of promotion would be passed.

¶24

Looking to the reply submitted by the respondents, it is clear that the respondents are not disputing recommendation of the petitioner for promotion on the post Trasor for the vacancies of the year 2018-19. The only objection taken by the respondents is that the Chairman of the Committee has not signed the minutes of meeting. The respondents have further admitted in the reply that the case of the petitioner would be considered in the next departmental promotion meeting.

¶25

In view of the averments made in the Para 4 of the reply, instant petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Trasor for the vacancies of the year 2018-19 in the

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/010736]

[CW-1975/2020]

next departmental promotion meeting and pass appropriate

¶30

orders.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

KuD/52

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram S/O Late Shri Sultan Singh 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

Rsrtc Jaipur Vs Digamber Singh

State of Raj Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Mukhraj Meena S/O Shri Champaram Meena Vs District Collector Dausa

Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi S/O Sh. B.S. Chaturvedi Vs the Management Committee

Dr Anil Kumar Mathur S/O Lt. Shri Ghanshyam Narayan Mathur Vs the Management Committee

Dr. Sukhpal Mali S/O Shri Ramdev Mali Vs the Management Committee