Disposed

Laxmi Narayan v. State

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2026CW/7743/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to release salary for July 2002 to March 2003 unpaid despite a 2003 representation. The court directed the District Education Officer to examine the representation and pay due salary within 60 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to DEO to examine representation dated 23.04.2003 and pay due salary within 60 days; failing which interest @6% per annum.

Laxmi Narayan Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2197]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7743/2006

¶4

Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Ramdev,aged about 38 years, R/o Gram Bhadal, Police Station Renwal, District - Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

District Education Officer, Primary Education, Department Of Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶9

Director, Primary Education, Bikaner

¶10

The Head Master, Rajkiya Uccha Prathmic Vidyalaya, Jhamwali, Rainwal Distt. Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajeev Surana Sr. Adv. with Ms. Muskan Verma
		Mr. Siddharth Sogani
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, AGC with
		Mr. Saumil Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

19/01/2026

¶16

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to give directions to the respondents to release due salary of the petitioner. In this writ petition, it has been submitted by the petitioner that aggrieved by non-payment of salary, the petitioner submitted one representation dated 23.04.2003 mentioning therein that, salary of the petitioner from July 2002 to March 2003 @ 1200 per month has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper justification have been given by the respondents in reply to

[2026:RJ-JP:2197]

[CW-7743/2006]

(2 of 2)

the writ petition and despite lapse of 22 years, due salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid period has not been given to him.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the purpose of grant of salary, services rendered by the petitioner are to be verified from the record.

¶23

Under these circumstances, respondent No.2-District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jaipur is directed to examine representation dated 23.04.2003 (Annexure-2) filed by the petitioner along with this writ petition and to make payment of due salary to the petitioner for which, he is otherwise entitled.

¶24

Necessary exercise should be done within a period of 60 days from today, failing which the petitioner shall be paid interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed payment of salary.

¶25

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶26

NEERU/45

Laxmi Narayan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narayan v. State

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

Jagdish Prasad Gurjar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs State Insurance and Gpg Depanr

A K Tandon Vs Central Bank of India Mumbai

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Nan Vs Dhanraj Choudhary and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Leela Ram Yogi Vs Shri Kunji Lal Meena

Ramesh Chand Tailor S/O Shri Magan Lal Tailor, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal IAS Additional Chief Secretary the Government