Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33451 (RAJ)

BAHADUR SINGH KHICHI S/O SHRI NATHU SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

WRW/296/2018 · 2025-07-01

Sudesh Bansal

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:24142] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 296/2018 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.635/2014 Bahadur Singh Khichi S/o Shri Nathu Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 43, Sain Colony, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Cum Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat (AGC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 01/07/2025 1. On behalf of Panchayati Raj Department, miscellaneous application seeking to recall/ review of the final order dated 18.05.2017 has been filed after a delay of 479 days. 2. Since the present review petition is being heard and decided on merits today itself, with the consent of counsel for both the parties, application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. 3. Heard counsel for both the parties. 4. Vide order dated 18.05.2017, after hearing counsel for both the parties including the then counsel-Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, GC appeared on behalf of State, the Coordinate Bench directed the State to pay interest @9% p.a. on the arrears of pension for delaying release of pension as well as benefit of 5th Pay [2025:RJ-JP:24142] (2 of 2) [WRW-296/2018] Commission. It was considered by the Coordinate Bench that undisputedly State has received the interest on the CPF amount redeposited by the employee. 5. This Court finds that the order dated 18.05.2017 was passed on merits and same does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The review petition is wholly misconceived. 6. As a result, the review petition is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/41