[2026:RJ-JP:6085] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/2022 Jamana Das Agarwal Son Of Shri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Plot No. 23 Shayam Vatika, Near Ram Nagar Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, Rajasthan Drugs And Pharmaceutical Limited, Road No. 12, V.k.i. Area, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Department Of Public Enterprises, Ministry Of Heavy Industries And Public Enterprises, Through Its Secretary, Block-14, Cgo Complex, New Delhi-110003. 3. Department Of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry Of Chemicals And Fertilizers, Government Of India, Through Its Secretary, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 4. Chairman (Ex-Officio), Rajasthan Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, Presently Principal Health Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 5. Deputy General Manager, (Finance And Information Human Resource Development Rajasthan Drugs And Technology) Limited, Road No.12, V.k.i. Pharmaceuticals Area, Jaipur (Raj.). 6. Factory Manager, Rajasthan Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, Road No.12, Vki Area, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/02/2026 1. None present for the respondents. 2. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed [2026:RJ-JP:6085] (2 of 4) [CW-57/2022] and the benefits of perks and allowances as per office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008, 02.04.2009 and Presidential Directive dated 30.04.2009 may be implemented for Board Level, Below Board level Executives and non unionized supervisors w.e.f. 26.11.2008 and payment of arrears may be made after adjusting the payments already made on his count. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring order dated 02.03.2021 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.253/2019 titled as S.S. Sharma Vs. Managing Director RDPL and Ors. submitted that identical issue was already decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and same was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court as SLP No.9478/2023 was dismissed on 06.01.2025. He submits that S.S. Sharma was also working in same cadre as that of present petitioner and the judgment is with regard to interpretation of OM issued by the Government of India. 4. Having considered the submissions and also the material placed on record, the petitioner, who was superannuated from RDPL as Assistant Manager (Commercial) has filed this writ petition for grant of benefits of perks and allowances as per office memorandum dated 26.11.2008, 02.04.2009 and the Presidential Directive dated 30.04.2009. 5. The identical controversy was considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in case of S.S. Sharma Vs. Managing Director RDPL (supra) and while allowing SAW on 02.03.2021, the Division Bench has observed as under:- Thus, a perusal of the above Office memorandum reveals that the Board of Directors are to decide and fix the ceiling with regard to admissibility of perks [2026:RJ-JP:6085] (3 of 4) [CW-57/2022] and allowances to different categories of the Executives subject to a maximum ceiling of 50% of the basic pay. The revised pay scales are to be implemented by issuance of Presidential Directive. It has also been specified that the payment of HRA, perks and allowances based on the revised pay- scales will, however, be from the date of issuance of Presidential Directive. As per Office memorandum dated 02.04.2009, the effective date for revising allowances may be taken as 26.11.2008. It was further clarified that in case, Presidential Directive is not issued within one month from the date of the said Office memorandum, then the revised allowances would be effective only from the date of Issuance of Presidential Directive but in no case, effective date of allowance could be prior to 26.11.2008. Admittedly, the Presidential Directive was issued within one month of the issuance of Office memorandum dated 02.04.2009. The Presidential Directive was issued on 30.04.2009 and a perusal of the said directive reproduced above reveals that President was pleased to direct the approval of pay- scales, fitment formula, DA guidelines and ceiling on perquisites for board level or below board level employees of CDA ad IDA pattern, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2007 respectively. Thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents that so far as perks and allowances are concerned, the same had not been approved by the Presidential Directive is without any force. Rather vide the Presidential Directive dated 30.04.2009, approval has been granted for perks and allowances on the basis of revised pay-scale. In these circumstances, the circular dated 15.09.2012 is not to be considered for fixing the date from which the perks and allowances are admissible to the appellant on account of revised [2026:RJ-JP:6085] (4 of 4) [CW-57/2022] pay-scale. In fact, the appellant is entitled to get perks and allowances on the basis of revised pay- scale, w.e.f., 26.11.2008, in terms of Office memorandum dated 02.04.2009 which has received the Presidential Directive within one month of its issuance. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.11.2018 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. 6. Aggrieved respondent No.1 has filed SLP No.9478/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but same was dismissed on 06.01.2025. 7. Having considered the parity as claimed by the petitioner, the writ petition is hereby allowed and disposed of on same terms as allowed by the Division Bench in case of S.S. Sharma Vs. Managing Director (supra). 8. The respondents are directed to examine the case of present petitioner within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order and if the petitioner is identically placed as that of S.S. Sharma Vs. Managing Director (supra) then respondents are directed to grant him perks and benefits as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 9. Needless to say that after deciding the entitlement of all payments be made to the petitioner within 6 weeks thereafter. 10. Writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /66