Disposed

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri B.P. Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CW/1106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition concerning pension claims, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the issue is no longer res integra following a Division Bench judgment. The court observed that delayed approach is irrelevant for recurring salary and pension matters. The petitioner was allowed to file a detailed representation to the respondent authority within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file a detailed representation before the concerned authority within 10 days; authority to adjudicate within 60 days; instant petition disposed of.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri B.P. Sharma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22090]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1106/2024

¶4

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri B.p. Sharma, Aged About 66 Years, Plot No. 112, Gomes Defence Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Hoff), Government Of Rajasthan, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Sansthanik Area, Jhalana, Jaipur.

¶9

The Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wild Life) And Chief Wild Life Warden, Government Of Rajasthan, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Sansthanik Area, Jhalana, Jaipur.

¶10

The Dy. Conservator Forest, Wild Life, Jaipur, Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan Old Coal Depot, Panipech, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur.

¶11

The Director Of Pension, Government Of Rajasthan, Near Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sorabh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

09/05/2024

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present matter is no more res integra in view of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chander Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ

¶18

Petition No. 2800/2021; decided on 17.10.2023) . It is

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:22090]

[CW-1106/2024]

further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, the order of the Division Bench has also been followed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ramesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19121/2023; decided on 07.12.2023) .

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the issue, as raised in the present writ petition, is similar to Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra) . However, it is contended that the petitioner has approached the Court at a belated stage.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The fact that the issue involved is covered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra) remains undisputed. The contention that the petitioner has approached the Court with a little delay is of no relevancy in the facts and circumstances as matters of salary and pension have a recurring cause of action, as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation: 2022 (4) SLR 862 (SC) .

¶26

In the case of Ramesh Chander Gupta (supra) , Division Bench of this Court inter-alia while referring to orders passed in Union of India & Ors. vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5445/2022; decided on 07.08.2023) & the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs. Ram Karan Bhakar & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4139/2022) as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:22090]

[CW-1106/2024]

C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.: 2023 SCC OnlineSC 401 has

¶31

passed the following directions:-

¶32

“It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Special Leave Petition (C) No.3420/2023 and Special Leave Petition (C) No.1001/2023 have also been disposed off on 19.05.2023. A copy of orders dated 11.04.2023 and 19.05.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court have also been placed on record. Therefore, the present petitions are also disposed off on the same terms with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and other consequential benefits as per their entitlement. Whatever amount is found payable be also released within a period of one month. Accordingly, the present petitions are dis-posed of.”

¶33

In light of the subsequent developments and the change in legal position, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation before the concerned authority within a period of 10 days, which shall be adjudicated upon by the said authority within a further period of 60 days, after having effectuated compliance with the principles of natural justice and also, the law applicable.

¶34

In light of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶36

Pooja /240

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri B.P. Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri B.P. Sharma, 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

Dr. Ram Anand Hori S/O Mr. Hori Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Darpan Kulshreshtha D/O Mr. Mohan Kishore Kulshreshtha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Amit Soni S/O Mr. P R Soni Vs the State of Rajasthan

Devidutt Sharma S/O Shri Late Durgadutt Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kishan Gopal Ayurvedic Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust Vs the Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal

Krishna Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.