[2025:RJ-JP:896-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 510/2023 Sameer Ahemad Son Of Shri Islam Ahemad, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Jheelda Ki Dhani, Udaipur Gilariya, Village Khoh Nagoriyan, Jagatpura Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Ats And Sog Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Near Ankur Cinema, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Additional Director General Of Police, Ats And Sog Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Near Ankur Cinema, Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Superintendent Of Police Ats, Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Near Ankur Cinema, Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Superintendent Of Police (Administration) Cid (Cb) Rajasthan, Jaipur, Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.). 6. Director Pension Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Iliyas Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 07/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. The order of the learned Single Judge only to the extent it denies salary for the period of work done beyond the age of superannuation is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground [2025:RJ-JP:896-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-510/2023] that though the petitioner has clearly stated that he was pressurized to submit an application that he volunteers to deposit the excess salary paid, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this fact. 3. The averments made in para 22 of the writ petition are vague. All that has been said is that the respondents pressurized and threatened. Which of the respondents pressurized, when and in what manner this pressure was exerted has not been stated. 4. It is trite law that allegations with regard to fraud, coercion, misrepresentation etc. are to be very specifically pleaded. In any case, the respondents have denied this fact. Therefore, it becomes a disputed question of fact. 5. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to grant any further relief more than what has been already granted by learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/171