Dismissed¶22

Jai Singh v. State Home Departmentors

Rajasthan HC16 May 2025CW/1895/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur | CW 1895/2016 | Jai Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors. | 16/05/2025 | Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. | Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; additional affidavit dated 04.03.2025 (Quarter Master, 4th Bn., RAC, Jaipur) confirmed revised pensionary benefits on account of Sixth Pay Commission already paid; petitioner absent on 14.02.2025, 30.01.2025 and hearing date; pending applications disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, nothing surviving for consideration as the petitioner had already been paid revised pensionary benefits on account of the Sixth Pay Commission and was unrepresented on successive dates. ¶22

Jai Singh Vs State Home Departmentors — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20801]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1895/2016

¶4

Jai Singh Son Of Shri Ram Dayal, aged about 62 years R/o Vpo Jaitpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

The Commandant, 4Th Battalion, Rac Chainpura, Jaipur 3. The Additional Director General Of Police Armed Battalion, Jaipur

¶9

The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: None Present
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC
	Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC with
	Mr. Abhishek Paliwal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

16/05/2025

¶15

As per the additional affidavit dated 04.03.2025 filed by Shri Rajesh Choudhary-the Quarter Master, 4^th Battalion, RAC, Jaipur pursuant to order of this Court dated 30.01.2025, the petitioner has been paid revised pensionary benefits on account of Sixth Pay Commission.

¶16

Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the aforesaid affidavit and documents appended therewith, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since, the petitioner has

[2025:RJ-JP:20801]

[CW-1895/2016]

(2 of 2)

already been paid benefit of revised pension, nothing survives for consideration of this Court in the writ petition.

¶21

None appears for the petitioner even in second round to rebut the aforesaid submission. None had appeared on his behalf on last two dates as well, i.e., 14.02.2025 and 30.01.2025.

¶22

In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶25

PRAGATI/77

Jai Singh v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh v. State Home Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leena Garg W/O Devendra Kumar Garg, D/O Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs Jagdish Chandra Gupta S/O Lt. Shri Poonam Chand Agarwal

Shri Ram Sharan Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Jai Ram Saini S/O. Bhola Ram Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Radha Krishan Agrawal Vs the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Cum Memorial Appellate Authority

Jagdish Charan, S/O Hukum Dan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Badri Narayan Jat S/O Ladu Ram Jat Vs the State of Rajasthan