Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The State Of Rajasthan vs Shashi Devi on 24 November, 2021

Author: Arun Bhansali

Bench: Arun Bhansali

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 46/2020

1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
       Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government
       Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Additional Director (Admn.), Medical Health And Family
       Welfare Department, Health Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
Shashi Devi W/o Late Shri Vishnu Singh Gehlot (Mpw), Aged
About 53 Years, R/o House No. 9/87, Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr.
                               Shreyansh Mehta.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Y.P. Khileree.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order 24/11/2021 This review petition has been filed by the petitioners - State in relation to order dated 16.01.2019 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.18880/2018.

In the order dated 16.01.2019, based on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petition was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Govind Dan Charan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1068/2014, decided on 17.12.2015, which aspect was not disputed by the counsel appearing for the State and submissions were made regarding restricting the material (Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:21:37 PM) (2 of 3) [WRW-46/2020] relief as the issue was raised belatedly, the Court after consideration passed the following order :-

"Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to selection grade and get fixation in the pay-scale of Rs.975-1720, 1200-2050 and 1640- 2900 (5500-9000) on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service respectively in terms of the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi :
(2009) 12 SCC 49 i.e. from the date of regular appointment.

The required exercise would be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."

The review petition has been filed, inter-alia, on the ground that the husband of the respondent was accorded promotion on the post of Non-Medical Assistant ('NMA') on 11.03.2005 and as he was accorded one promotion, he was not entitled to relief as given in the case of Govind Dan Charan (supra) and therefore, the directions in the order under review could not have been passed in favour of the respondents and therefore, the same deserves to be reviewed.

Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Malaria Surveillance Worker ('MSW') / Multipurpose Worker ('MPW') on 01.03.1971. As per the circular dated 25.01.1992, the selection grades are required to be given at the end of 09, 18 & 27 years from the date of appointment and as the said period would be completed in the year 1980, 1984 & 1998 respectively, fact that promotion was accorded as NMA on 11.03.2005 is of no consequence and therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed.

(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:21:37 PM)

(3 of 3) [WRW-46/2020] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The facts are not in dispute wherein the husband of the respondent was appointed as MSW/MPW on 01.03.1971.

Once the said aspect is not in dispute then the entitlement for selection grades at the end of 09, 18 & 27 years would have to be calculated in the year 1980, 1989 & 1998 and in view thereof, the mere fact that on 11.03.2005, husband of the respondent was accorded promotion as NMA is indeed of no consequence in so far as the relief granted by this Court is concerned.

In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the review petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

In case, the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in SBCWP No.18880/2018 has not been implemented so far, the same be now implemented within a period of four weeks.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 88-Rmathur/-

(Downloaded on 24/11/2021 at 09:21:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)