Allowed

Ramdayal Meena S/O Shri Patti Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 May 2024CW/6151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding salary and pension claims. Relying on precedent establishing recurring cause of action, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners claims within 60 days and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file detailed representation within 10 days, to be decided within 60 days. Petition dismissed pending this.

Ramdayal Meena S/O Shri Patti Ram Meena Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:24372]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6151/2024

¶4

Ramdayal Meena S/o Shri Patti Ram Meena, Aged About 70 Years, R/o V And P Chandupura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Secretary, Department Of Finance Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶9

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶10

Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶11

The Deputy Secretary (Pension), Jaipur Discom, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

22/05/2024

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

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:24372]

[CW-6151/2024]

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19121/2023; decided on 07.12.2023) .

¶22

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 petitioners have approached the Court at a belated stage.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

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) .

¶25

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. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.: 2023 SCC OnlineSC 401 has passed the following directions:-

¶26

“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 dis-

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:24372]

[CW-6151/2024]

posed 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.”

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶34

ANIL SHARMA /86

Ramdayal Meena S/O Shri Patti Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdayal Meena S/O Shri Patti Ram Meena 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

Sona Gurawa W/O Norat Mal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Uma Devi W/O Ramdev Ganchha Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rupchand S/O Moti Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Priyanka Kumari W/O Shri Anil Baloda Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs Director

Mam Chand Mehra, S/O Shri Chaju Lal Mehra Vs the State of Rajasthan