Dismissed

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer v. Ramesh Kumar S/O Ganeshi Lal

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2025SAW/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by Municipal Corporation against a writ allowing counting of work-charged service as qualifying service for pension. Following a three-Judge Bench decision, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order and directions upholding work-charged service as qualifying service for pension were affirmed.

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer Vs Ramesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:29846-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 178/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20043/2017

¶6

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, Through Its Commissioner, Ajmer.

¶7

----Appellant/Respondent

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ramesh Kumar S/o Ganeshi Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Outside Of Delhi Gate, Longiya Hospital, Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondent-Petitioner

¶11

State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department of Local Self, State Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

¶12

Director Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

----Performa/Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria along with Mr. Arihant Samdaria

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

04/08/2025

¶18

The issue raised in the appeal is no more res integra in terms. The appeal has been filed on the basis of the law as it was laid down earlier in the case of “ Uday Pratap Thakur & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.” (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371) , wherein for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, service rendered as work charged was not to be counted. However, subsequently, the Apex Court examined the ratio decided in “ Uday Pratap Thakur” (supra) in “Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” (2019) 10 SCC 516 , which was a three Judges Bench

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:29846-DB]

¶20

[SAW-178/2024]

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

judgment, held that the view taken in “ Uday Pratap Thakur” (supra) was not good law, as it failed to take notice of a three Judges Bench judgment. Law of precedent requires a Larger Bench judgment to be followed by a smaller Bench and therefore, we are bound by the judgment passed by a three Judges Bench namely; “Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.” which laid down that the service rendered by an employee as work charge would be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

¶23

In view thereto, we uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the directions made therein. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is found to be without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶25

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶27

AMIT/92

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer v. Ramesh Kumar S/O Ganeshi Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer v. Ramesh Kumar S/O Ganeshi Lal

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

M/S Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Raghu Nandan Pal S/O Shri Kanwar Mahendra Pal

State of Additional Rajasthan Vs Vivek Bharadwaj S/O Late Shri Mahendra Bal Bharadwaj