[2025:RJ-JP:7271] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20186/2023 Dr. O.P. Agrawal Son of Late Shri Sohan Lal Agarwal, aged about 70 Years, Resident Of 7/167, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary to the Department of Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Public Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Director, Pension and Pensioner Welfare Department, Pension Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K.Gouttam For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakhar Jain for Mr.Archit Bohra, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. Mr.Prakhar Jain, Adv. has put in appearance on behalf of Mr.Archit Bohra, Addl.GC. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, service is treated as complete. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in the lead case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21/2020. Counsel submits that the instant petition be disposed of in the light of similar direction issued in the case of Vijay Singh (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:7271] (2 of 3) [CW-20186/2023] 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) and the following directions have been issued by this Court:- “40. Since all the judgments of various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court were not brought into the notice of Division Bench of this Court at the time of decision of Safi Mohd.(supra) and after the decision of the case of Safi Mohd.(supra), two judgments have been delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani(supra) and All India Judges Association (supra) in favour of the employees like the petitioners by holding that the persons would be entitled to get benefits of annual increments even on the day of their retirement i.e. on 30th June. Hence, under the change circumstances the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 41. Hence, looking to the binding effect of above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.P. Mundinamani(supra) and All India Judges Association (supra), it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefits of increment falling due on 1st July on account of their conduct for the requisite length of time i.e. one year. The petitioners would be entitled to get notional payment on 1st July, notwithstanding their superannuation on 30th June. 42. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and thereafter grant notional increment to the petitioners. The petitioners’ pension would consequently be refixed. The appropriate orders be issued and the arrears of pension be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” [2025:RJ-JP:7271] (3 of 3) [CW-20186/2023] 6. The instant writ petition also stand disposed of in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra). 7. Stay application(s) and all application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/188