[2025:RJ-JP:48539-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 221/2025 Rajasthan Finincial Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj Son Of Late Sh. Kedar Narain, R/o 30-B, Vrindavan Vihar, Muhana Road, Golyawas, Man-Sarovar, Jaipur-302020 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised in the present appeal stands finally adjudicated by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.626/2018 decided on 16.07.2018, wherein this Court considered the similar controversy and held as under: “In view of the above, it cannot be taken to be a case of exceptional nature so as to deny actual benefit to the petitioner/non-appellant. If the ratio propounded by the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) is also applied, petitioner-non-appellant is entitled to the actual benefits. It is quite surprising that instead of complying the judgment of the learned Single Judge so as to save RFC from the payment of interest at the rate of 9% for subsequent period to four weeks, the appeal has been filed. It is more so when the judgment of the learned Single Judge refers to the admission of the appellant-respondent-RFC not only for holding review DPC but to extend consequent benefits. After agreed order by learned Single Judge, it cannot be questioned. [2025:RJ-JP:48539-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-221/2025] In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the detailed order passed by the learned Single Judge after considering all the issues and therein benefits have been given by applying the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Pareek Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Anr. S.B. CWP No.530/2016 decided vide order dated 16.03.2016. Therein also, actual benefits of the intervening period with interest at the rate of 9% were allowed. The judgment in the case of Dinesh Pareek (supra) has already been complied by the RFC thus they cannot be allowed to make discrimination between similarly placed persons. Accordingly, finding no substance in the appeal, we dismiss it. This Court was of the opinion to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- but on assurance of learned counsel for the appellant for holding review DPC at the earliest, we are not imposing the cost but officers of the RFC are directed to remain careful in future in taking decision for filing the appeal and it should not be for the sake of it. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, direction is given to the RFC to hold DPC within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order with consequential benefit, as directed by the learned Single Judge.“ 2. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed mutatis mutandis. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/37