Allowed

Abdul Gaffar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2023CW/2382/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed Writ Petition seeking regular pay-scale from date of initial appointment. Held that petitioner, being similarly situated to colleagues who secured benefits via Industrial Tribunal, is entitled to same benefit to maintain parity.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to extend regular pay-scale with consequential benefits to petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.

Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2382/2020

¶3

Abdul Gaffar S/o Jaan Mohd, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Kotri, Tehsil Kotri, Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶7

District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bhilwara. 3. Principal, Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Reeth, Tehsil Kotri, Bhilwara.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Kumar, A.G.C.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

06/01/2023

¶13

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶14

Shri Sharwan Kumar, A.G.C., accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, therefore, service is complete.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioner may be granted regular pay-scale from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits as the similarly situated employees appointed along with the petitioner have been extended the benefit.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class-IV employee vide order dated 10.12.1985. He submits that along with the petitioner, two more

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-2382/2020]

¶20

persons, namely, Hemraj at S.No.29 and Durgalal Khatik at S.No.32 (Annex.1) were appointed. Learned counsel further submits that Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik raised an industrial dispute for grant of regular pay-scale with effect from the date of their initial appointment and the same was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of the Industrial Tribunal was challenged by the State by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3172/2003 titled as “State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Sen & Ors.” which was dismissed on 08.11.2013. Aggrieved against the order dated 08.11.2013, a Special Appeal (Writ) No.381/2016 “State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Sen & Ors.” was also filed before the Division Bench of this court which too was dismissed in default vide order dated 10.08.2016. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the said Special Appeal (Writ) was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2017. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the benefits extended to Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik may also be extended in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

Learned State Counsel has although opposed the writ petition, but he is not in a position to dispute the fact of the benefit having been extended in favour of Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik.

¶23

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings.

¶24

The admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 along with two other persons, namely, Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik. After raising the dispute

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-2382/2020]

¶27

before the Industrial Tribunal, the benefits were extended in the case of Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik which has attained finality till the Division Bench of this Court. As a consequence thereof, the benefit has been extended by the Department in favour of Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik. Since the petitioner is similarly situated to the persons who have already been extended the benefit of grant of regular pay-scale with effect from the date of their initial appointment, thus, to maintain the parity, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit as has been extended in the case of Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik and he cannot be denied the benefit for not approaching the labour court along with Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the same benefit to the petitioner as has been extended in the case of Hemraj and Durgalal Khatik.

¶29

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶30

7-/Vivek/-

Abdul Gaffar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gaffar 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

Ramniwas Vishnoi Vs Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd.

Sushila Choudhary Vs Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Sangeeta Gupta Vs Navin Mahajan and Ors.

Century Sales Vs Nagar Parishad, Sriganganagar

Hukam Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan