Disposed

Phool Chand Mali v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2025CW/7856/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a 2004 recovery order of Rs. 70,300. Respondents showed the amount was deposited in 2022; pensionary benefits were withheld due to a criminal case in which he was later acquitted. The petition challenging the recovery was rendered infructuous and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; liberty to file representation on pensionary benefits to be decided by speaking order within six weeks.

Phool Chand Mali Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:17035]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7856/2004

¶4

Phool Chand Mali S/o Shri Harji Mali aged about 50 years presently posted as House Keeper, Circuit House, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Deputy Secretary, General Administration (Gr.5) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Manager, Circuit House, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi with Ms. Deepa Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

22/04/2025

¶14

By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2004 passed by Deputy Secretary, General Administration (Group-5), Department whereby, recovery of Rs.70,300/- was directed to be effected against the petitioner.

¶15

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record one letter dated 29.11.2022 along with receipt dated 29.11.2022 in order to show that the petitioner has deposited the amount sought to be recovered vide order dated 22.07.2004.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the said fact, however, he states that till date pensionary benefits have not

[2025:RJ-JP:17035]

[CW-7856/2004]

(2 of 2)

been finalized as yet. Thereupon, it has been clarified by learned counsel for the respondents that pensionary benefits were withheld on account of pendency on criminal case against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted later on.

¶21

However, looking to the prayer in the instant writ petition, where only relief sought by the petitioner is with regard to order dated 22.07.2004, hence, in view of above subsequent facts, the writ petition is rendered infructuous.

¶22

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation in respect of his remaining grievance and in case, any such representation is made that may be decided by speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in view of above discussions.

¶24

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶26

DAKSH/20

Phool Chand Mali v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Chand Mali v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhagwati Devi Wife of Shri Keshar Dev Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prem Chand Sain Vs State Forest Department Anr.

Avinash Guganiya Son of Late Shri Mamraj Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ram Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Sannu Devi W/O Shri Santosh Kumar