Allowed

Priyanka Patidar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2024CW/146/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition for refund of deducted salary from an employee who resigned to join state services. The petition was decided as squarely covered by a coordinate bench precedent, dismissing the argument that a pending divisional bench appeal justified indefinite deferral.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reimburse salary recovered from petitioner and pay interest at 6% p.a. from date of recovery.

Priyanka Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1907]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 146/2019

¶4

Priyanka Patidar D/o Shri Parmeshwar Patidar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Jolana, Tehsil Garhi, District- Banswara (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary To Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, District Banswara.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramdev Potalia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

11/01/2024

¶15

Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res-integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Mahendra Kumar

¶16

Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶17

No.4844/2022 on 18.10.2022, which reads as under:

¶18

"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to refund the recovered amount from the petitioner on account of salary, allowance and training expenses alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment in Arun Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5255/2013, decided on 11.08.2014 at Jaipur Bench and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra).

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:1907]

[CW-146/2019]

Learned AAG made submissions that though the issue raised is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra) but as another similar nature order passed by this Court is pending consideration before the Divsion Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.288/2021, wherein, effect and operation of the order has been stayed, therefore, the hearing in the present matter be deferred.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶25

Once it is not in dispute that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra), merely because an appeal arising out of an order passed following the order in the case of Arun Choudhary (supra) is pending consideration before the Division Bench, in which interim order has been granted, cannot be a reason enough for deferring the hearing of the present petition, indefinitely.

¶26

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmala Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14864/2021, decided on 25.10.2021, before which also identical submissions were made, has declined similar prayer.

¶27

In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reimburse the amount of salary (excluding the training expenses) that was recovered from the petitioner, who have resigned to join other State services. The respondents would also be required to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment.

¶28

Needful may done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of this order."

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the decision rendered in Mahendra Kumar Choudhary's case (supra). All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶30

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶31

295-Zeeshan

Priyanka Patidar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Patidar 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

Ram Prasad Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Parivahan Marg

Narottam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajjan Singh Vs the State Bank of India

Samma Kathat Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Bunkar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Devendra Kumar Vishnoi (Belt No. 559/1243) Vs State of Rajasthan