Mohan Lal Midha vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mohan Lal Midha and others, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. They contended that their case was covered by a previous judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the same High Court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated July 21, 2023. The petitioners sought a direction to the competent authority to consider their grievances in light of the aforementioned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested permission to file a detailed representation before the competent authority for redressal. The respondents are the State of Rajasthan and various departments, including the State Taxes (GST) Department.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the competent authority. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt, keeping into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra). The Court noted that the order was passed based on the submissions made in the petition and that the respondents are free to examine the veracity of these submissions. Only in case the averments made in the petition are found to be correct, would the petitioners be entitled to the relief. The judgment in Vijay Singh directed the grant of notional increment and consequent refixation of pension, with arrears to be paid within three months.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a notional increment falling due on July 1st, notwithstanding their superannuation on June 30th, in accordance with the judgment in Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Issue of entitlement to notional increment upon superannuation). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that their case is squarely covered by the judgment in Vijay Singh, which held that employees are entitled to notional increments falling due on July 1st, even if they superannuate on June 30th. They relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in C.P. Mundinamani and All India Judges Association. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's direction implies that the respondents are to examine the veracity of the petitioners' submissions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 15/04/2024
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by judgment dated 21.07.2023 of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21/2020; Vijay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under:- “41.Hence, looking to the binding effect of above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani(supra) and All India Judges Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on1st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to get notional payment on 1st July, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June.
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional increment to the petitioners. The petitioners’ pension would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, all these petitions stand disposed of.
Stay applications and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.”
[2024:RJ-JD:16073] (3 of 3) [CW-5849/2024]
Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioners may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to the competent authority of the department and with a direction to the said authority to decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, keeping into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra).
The present order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief aforesaid.
Stay petition also stands disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 15-Vij/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.