PRASADI LAL YADAV v. STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTORS
CW/3222/2016 · 2025-03-19
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26300 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26300 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:12426] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3222/2016 Prasadi Lal Yadav S/o Sh. Mool Chand Yadav, Bagar Ka Bas, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary First, Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar-Dy.G.C.
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 19/03/2025
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner after granting him benefit as per Rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1998) and a prayer has also been made for granting the difference of pension amount and other retiral benefit with interest in terms of Rule 26-A of the aforesaid rules.
2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that the documents with revised pay scale has been prepared by the respondents in the form of chart and the same has been produced by the petitioner along with an application for taking the documents on record. Counsel submits that the petitioner would
[2025:RJ-JP:12426] (2 of 2) [CW-3222/2016] be satisfied in case, the benefits occurring out of the aforesaid chart are provided to him. Counsel submits that as per the Entry No. 39, the salary of the petitioner would be 8500/- on 25.01.2000 under the regular pay scale of 7500-12000/-. Counsel submits that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to make the payment of revised pay arrears in terms of the Entry No. 39 of this document.
3. Counsel for the respondents has no objection as this document has been prepared by the State Authority in the tabular form.
4. Considering the above statement made by counsel for the respective parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents to revise the pay scale and pension of the petitioner accordingly in terms of Entry No. 39 in the document annexed with the reply bearing Nos. 24 and 25 of the writ petition.
5. Needless to observe that the respondents would also pay the interest to the petitioner @ 9% per annum and would comply the
order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/93