Disposed

Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2024CW/2863/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking notional increment and pension re-fixation despite superannuation. The Court, finding facts identical to a prior case, directed respondents to grant notional increment and arrears based on a previous batch judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant notional increment, re-fix petitioners' pension, and pay arrears within three months. Petitioners given liberty to file representation to be decided within four weeks.

Mani Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12007]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2863/2024

¶4

Mani Ram S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Sirsali, Dudhwakhara, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

¶5

Dungar Ram Jat S/o Nanak Ram Jat, Aged About 60 Years, House No.1 Vpo Buchawas, Tehsil Taranagar, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

¶6

Radheshyam Sharma S/o Jodhraj Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Ghanghoo, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur. 3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Superintendent Of Police, Churu, Rajasthan. 5. Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : None present

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

13/03/2024

¶17

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶18

The lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court.

¶19

A copy of the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14623/2023 : Jagdish Prasad Bangar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has been handed over by learned counsel for the petitioners with a request that the same be placed for perusal of the Court.

[2024:RJ-JD:12007]

[CW-2863/2024]

(2 of 3)

On perusal of the record, it is clear that the case of the present petitioners is identical to the case of Jagdish Prasad Bangar (supra), and therefore, a similar order is being passed. 5. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21/2020 (Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) . The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under:-

¶24

“41. Hence, looking to the binding effect of above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P.Mundinamani(supra) and All India Judges Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on 1st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to get notional payment on 1st July, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June .

¶25

42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional increment to the petitioners. The petitioners’ pension would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

43. With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions stand disposed of.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:12007]

[CW-2863/2024]

44. Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of”.

¶31

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the competent authorities of the department and the competent authorities of the department are directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra).

¶32

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

¶33

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶35

70-akansha/-

Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Ram 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

Chandra Shekhar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Gopal Chand Jat Vs the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Sajjan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Babulal Bohra Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Premraj Bheel Vs State of Rajasthan