Disposed¶10

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/O Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2025WRW/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition (Writ) 218/2023 in SB Civil WP 8880/2015, Kaushal Kumar Garg (decd.) thr. LRs v Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.; Rajasthan HC Jaipur, Anoop Kumar Dhand J, 10/10/2025; review of order dt. 18.09.2023 refused: counting of past service in other department for pension/gratuity, interest on delayed gratuity per circular dt. 09.07.2009, and pension-scheme grievance held beyond original prayer (reinstatement + retiral dues, already granted); review petition and pending applications disposed; liberty to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

So far as the prayer made in the original writ petition is concerned, it stood satisfied: the petitioner's services were reinstated and he was granted due retiral benefits. ¶8

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/O Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the additional grievances raised in the review petition - counting of past services rendered in another department for pension/gratuity and terminal benefits, interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per circular dated 09.07.2009, and non-consideration of the opted pension scheme - fall within the scope of the prayer of the original writ petition and can be entertained in review.

¶4

Court's answer

So far as the prayer made in the original writ petition is concerned, it stood satisfied: the petitioner's services were reinstated and he was granted due retiral benefits.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The grievances narrated now in the review petition (or by way of rejoinder to the original writ petition) were not prayed for in the original writ petition and, being beyond the scope of that prayer, cannot be entertained by this Court.

¶8

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of not being granted the other benefits, he is entitled to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievances.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), 10.10.2025 - S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8880/2015 (Kaushal Kumar Garg (decd.) through legal heirs v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors.). The review petition sought modification of the Court's order dated 18.09.2023 to obtain consequential benefits not secured therein, namely counting of past services rendered in another department for pension/gratuity and other terminal benefits, interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per circular dated 09.07.2009, and consideration of the opted pension scheme. Holding: the prayer in the original writ petition was confined to reinstatement and payment of retiral dues, both of which stood granted; the present grievances were never part of that prayer and, being beyond its scope, could not be entertained in review. The review petition was disposed of, with pending applications likewise disposed of, the petitioner being left at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of the residual grievances. No monetary award was made and no precedent was relied upon.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8880/2015

¶5

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/o Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg, Aged About 69 Years, (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs.

¶6

1/1.Vimla Garg W/o Sh Kaushal Kumar Garg, Aged About 65 Years, (Since Deceased)

¶7

1/2.Kapil Garg, Aged About 44 Years, S/o Kaushal Kumar Garg

¶8

1/3.Kavita Agarwal D/o Kaushal Kumar Garg, Aged About 47 Years, All R/o Uttam Photo, Beawar, District Ajmer

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur (Raj.).

¶12

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶13

Secretary, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Makarwali Road, Panchseel Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶14

The Accounts Officer (Bwc), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Opp. Krishi Upaj Mandi, Nehru Road, Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kohli and Mr. Mohd. Shariq

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlot Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Rohit Thakur

¶18

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

[WRW-218/2023]

(2 of 4)

10/10/2025

Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing counter to the additional affidavit.

¶24

The instant review petition has been preferred for modification of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8880/2015, submitted by the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that by way of filing the aforesaid petition, a prayer was made for issuing directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service and make the payment of full salary till his retirement along with consequential benefits and retiral dues, as per law. Counsel submits that though the petitioner was reinstated back in service, however, all the consequential benefits including counting of past services, rendered by him in other department for the purpose of pension/gratuity and other terminal benefits were not given. Counsel further submits that the interest on delayed payment of gratuity, as per circular dated 09.07.2009 has not been granted. He further submits that though he has opted for pension scheme, but the same was not considered by the respondents.

¶26

In the considered opinion of this Court whatever has been sought for in this review petition, has not been prayed in the original writ petition. The prayer was confined in the writ petition to issue the direction of reinstatement and payment of retiral dues.

¶27

[WRW-218/2023]

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was reinstated back in service, but the aforesaid benefits were not extended to him, hence, the order passed by this Court is liable to be modified.

¶30

Per contra, counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the relief sought for in the aforesaid petition was granted and not only the services of the petitioner were reinstated but also the retiral benefits were released in favour of the petitioner. Counsels submitted that considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition was rendered as infructuous, as no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with the petition.

¶31

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶32

So far as the prayer made in the original writ petition is concerned, the services of the petitioner were reinstated and he was granted due retiral benefits. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the other grievances, which are narrated now in the review petition or by way of a rejoinder to the original writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid grievances cannot be entertained by this Court being beyond the scope of prayer, made in the original petition.

¶33

However, it is made clear that in case, the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of not granting of other benefits,

¶34

(4 of 4) [WRW-218/2023]

¶35

he is entitled to approach appropriate forum of law for redressal for his grievances.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant review petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

KuD/46

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/O Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/O Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

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

Arti Wife of Dinesh Vs State of Rajastahn

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Dhanna Lal Jat Son of Shri Hari Narayan

Trilochan Singh S/O Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramveer S/O Somraj, Vs State of Rajasthan

Juvenile P @ P S/O B, Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Yadav S/O Bharat Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan