Allowed

Ratna v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2023CW/8897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed connected writ petitions regarding pension and retirement benefits, relying on a prior judgment. Directed respondents to accord arrears of monetary benefits effective three years prior to filing and quashed the grant of benefits from a later, contested date.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of petitions; quashing of respondents' action regarding the date of benefit grant; entitlement to benefits from initial appointment date with arrears for three years prior to filing.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:26559]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10095/2022

¶4

Nathu Pargi S/o Shree Onkar Pargi, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Village Arniya, Post - Ghalkiya, Tehsil And District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Nahar Mandal Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, Mahi Dam Division- First, Mahi Project, Banswara.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Mahi Rehabilitation And Survey Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.

¶10

The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Udaipur.

¶11

The Assistant Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Regional Office, Udaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8897/2022

¶15

Ratna S/o Narayan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Araniya, Post Ghalkiya, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Nahar Mandal Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶19

The Executive Engineer, Mahi Dam Division - First, Mahi Project, Banswara.

¶20

The Executive Engineer, Mahi Rehabilitation And Survey Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.

¶21

The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Udaipur.

¶22

The Assistant Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Regional Office, Udaipur.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

[2023:RJ-JD:26559]	(2 of 3)	[CW-10095/2022]
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶26

Order

¶27

22/08/2023

¶28

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present cases is squarely covered by a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4535/2021) and other connected writ petitions, decided on 30.03.2022.

¶29

For the self same reasons, the present writ petitions are also allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Laxman (supra) which reads as under:-

¶30

“In view thereof, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions cannot be thrown out on account of alleged unexplained delay and laches. However, for balancing the equities, the actual benefit available to the petitioners can be restricted for three years from before the filing of the writ petitions.

¶31

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners are entitled for the benefits of their continuity in service in terms of the Award dated 22/3/1999 from the date of their respective initial date of appointment as indicated in Annex.5 to the writ petition and as indicated hereinbefore. The action of the respondents in granting benefits from the alleged date of reinstatement i.e. 1/8/2000 by order dated 29/8/2005 (Annex.5) is quashed. The petitioners would be entitled to semipermanent and permanent status from the date of their initial appointment along with the benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:26559]

[CW-10095/2022]

accordance with law, which would also be reflected in their entitlement to salary and/or pension. After calculating all the benefits available to the petitioners based on the above directions, the petitioners would be entitled to the actual monetary benefits w.e.f. three years prior to filing of the respective writ petitions.

¶36

The entire exercise be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks and the arrears of monetary benefits be accorded to the petitioners within a period of four weeks thereafter and continue to pay the benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law.”

¶37

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶38

237-238-Vivek/-

Ratna v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Divya Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Meka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Sangeeta Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan