Allowed

Hanuman Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2024CW/9147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors seeking pay scale parity with comparable posts and revised pay scale benefits from 01.09.2008. Court allowed the petition following its earlier Vinay Bansal judgment, directing respondents to extend the same benefits within two months after verifying the petitioners' averments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted pay refixation and revised pay scale benefits per Notification dated 06.04.2013 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in terms of Vinay Bansal order; respondents to extend benefits within two months.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:29140]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9147/2024

¶4

Hanuman Ram S/o Raju Ram Godara, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 567, Ashapurana Nanomax-2 Shilargarh, Jodhpur.

¶5

Gangaram Regar S/o Shri Ladu Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bhimpura Post Gandher Via Pander, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.

¶6

Nilam Veerwal W/o Late Shri Arvind Veerwal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 302/a Sarjan Apartment 100 Peet Road Shobhagpura, Udaipur.

¶7

Chaganlal Meghawal S/o Late Shri Ramlal Meghawal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Post- Khinwara, Railway Station Somesar, Sub- Tehsil Khinwara, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

¶8

Mukta Soni D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Soni, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 91/200, Gokhle, Marg Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶9

Alka Ojha D/o Late Shri Hari Narayan Ojha, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 2031, Tolaram Paliwal Ki Gali, Nahargarh Jaipur.

¶10

Anil Choudhary S/o Shri Gopal Krishan Choudhary, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 3/349, Saket Nagar Beawar.

¶11

Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Harpal Singh Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 74, Kalakhari, Buhana, Jhunjhunu.

¶12

Lalit Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri Bhediram Chaturvedi, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 1070/40, Shiv Nagar Bihariganj, Ajmar.

¶13

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav S/o Shri Gopiram Yadav, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Plot No. 58, Kashi Nagar Colony Nindar Benad, Jaipur.

¶14

Sunil Kumar Saini S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Keti Ghati Kengal, Alwar.

¶15

Pushpendra Bhardwaj S/o Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 201, South West Block Alwar.

¶16

Siyaram Sharma S/o Late Shri Jangnnath Prasad Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Manpal Colony, Shakti Nagar Ghantaghar Road Dholpur.

¶17

(2 of 4) [CW-9147/2024]

¶18

[2024:RJ-JD:29140]

¶19

Atul Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Mahesh Chandra Bhardwaj, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-240, Hari Bhau Upadhyay Nagar Mukhaya Pushkar Road Ajmar.

¶20

Naveen Kumar Jain S/o Shri Dharm Chand Jain, Aged About 51 Years, R/o E-166, Nirman Nagar, D.c.m. Ajmer Road Jaipur.

¶21

Ashok Singh Gangwar S/o Shri Surendra Singh Gangwar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o E-94, Police Path Nirman Nagar Ajmer Road Jaipur.

¶22

----Petitioners

¶23

Versus

¶24

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Transport, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005.

¶25

The Commissioner, Department Of Rajasthan Transport, 409, Sahakar Marg, Jyothi Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankur Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: --

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶29

Order

¶30

18/07/2024

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶33

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:(a) The record of the case may kindly called. (b) The respondents may be directed to refix the pay scale of the post of Motor Vehicle sub Inspectors at par to that with the posts of Mechanics in Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Subordinate Service, Instructor in ITI and

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:29140]

[CW-9147/2024]

Mechanical Foreman in Mines and Geology Department w.e.f. the date of entry in service;

¶38

(c) The respondents may be directed to grant the benefit of revised pay scale to the petitioners as per the Notification dated 06.04.2013 (Annx.-4) w.e.f. 01.09.2008 along with interest to the tune of 12 % per annum;

¶39

(d) That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law;

¶40

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order of direction which is favorable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

¶41

(f) Costs of the litigation be allowed in favour of the petitioners.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1723/2001 “Vinay Bansal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” decided on 28.05.2015. Learned counsel further submits that the matter has attained finality as the appeal against the order dated 28.05.2015 has been affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 23.11.2017 and the S.L.P against the Division Bench judgment dated 23.11.2017 has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2019. He submits that the review petition and thereafter curative petition against the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.05.2019 too was rejected. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief which was extended by the Department in the case of Vinay Bansal (supra) .

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:29140]

[CW-9147/2024]

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶47

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Vinay Bansal (supra) on 28.05.2015. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits accruing to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶48

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.

¶49

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶50

9-Ashutosh/-

Hanuman Ram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Ram 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

Fateh Lal Kumawat Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Amritpal @ Amba Vs State of Rajasthan

Amritpal @ Amba Vs State of Rajasthan

Mehboob Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Lal Maru Vs State of Rajasthan

Parama Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan