Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16066 (RAJ)

AYUB KHAN v. STATE HOME DEPARTMENTORS

CW/11287/2016 · 2025-03-26

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:13806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11287/2016 Ayub Khan S/o Nawab Ali, Aged about 52 years, R/o. 556-A, Ridhi Sidhi Nagar, Village Benar, Police Station Harmara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate Jaipur. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Jaipur Police, Jaipur. 5. Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ) Police Commissionerate, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parth Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. By way of filing instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents, to not to accept his application, seeking voluntary retirement and accept his application, seeking withdrawal of the aforesaid application. 2. The petitioner approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer by way of filing instant writ petition, wherein this Court vide order dated 23.8.2016, passed an interim order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on work. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to work. [2025:RJ-JP:13806] (2 of 2) [CW-11287/2016] 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that now the petitioner was retired on 31.05.2024, after attaining the age of superannuation, so under the changed circumstances, no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this petition and this petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 5. However, the respondents are directed to release all the retiral dues to the petitioner with all consequential benefits, as the petitioner remained in service till date of his retirement. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RONAK JAIMAN/153