Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ramesh Chand Jangid S/O Shri Badri Lal … vs State Of Rajasthan … on 5 March, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:9736-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17484/2024
Rajasthan Sevanivrat Police Kalyan Sansthan, Through Its
President Vasudev Singh S/o Mool Singh Aged About 62, 518,
Hanuman Nagar Extension, Sirsi Road, Jaipur-302021.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Though Its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj).302005.
2. Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Through
Additional Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
3. Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Through
Additional Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur, 302005.
4. Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
302015
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16874/2024
1. Badri Narayan Nandwana S/o Late Shri Hanumat Prasad Ji
Nandwana, Resident Of 166, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
2. Nawal Kishore Mishra S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Resident Of 32-
B, Janpath, Radha Kishan Colony, Ramnagar, Sodala,
Jaipur.
3. Sattar S/o Mola Bux, R/o Bhutto Ka Bas, Bikaner.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
– 302005.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Through
Its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur – 302005.
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 10:00:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9736-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-17484/2024]
(3) D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11229/2024
Omprakash Bansal S/o Shri Ramsharan Lal, Aged About 73
Years, Retired Protocol Officer And Administrative Officer District
Judge Karauli, At Present R/o Vaidh Colony, Gangapur City,
District Ganagapur City- 322201 (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Rajasthan
Government, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Director, Pension And Pensioner Welfare Department,
Rajasthan Government, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
—-Respondents
(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18294/2024
Ramesh Chand Jangid S/o Shri Badri Lal Jangid, 102-A, Deep
Nagar (D.p. Colony-Ii), New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur-
302005.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through
Its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur-302005.
—-Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. H.V. Nandwana Advocate with
Mr. Premchand Sharma Advocate and
Mr. Yashvardhan Nandwana Advocate.
Mr. Anand Sharma Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Advocate General
assisted by Ms. Harshita Thakral
Advocate.
Mr. Kartikey Sharma Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Sandeep Taneja
Additional Advocate General.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 10:00:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9736-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-17484/2024]
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
05/03/2025
1. With the consent of the parties, we are inclined to dispose off
these writ petitions at this stage.
2. The grievance raised through these writ petitions essentially
centers around the period within which the full pension is to be
restored under the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996
(herein referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). Full pension is restored
after a period of 14 years in case of commutation of pension under
the scheme of the Rules of 1996. The period of restoration of the
pension, according to the petitioners, is such that it results in
financial loss and according to the petitioners, the restoration
period is required to be reworked in the light of the
recommendations made by Fifth Pay Commission and the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Common Cause”,
A Registered Society & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
142.
3. Learned Advocate General would submit that these are
essentially matters of policy decision. He would bring to the notice
of the Court the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Shila Devi & Ors Vs. State
of Punjab & Ors.(Civil Writ Petition No. 9426/2023 & other
connected matters decided on 27.11.2024), wherein the
similar challenge was repelled.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 10:00:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:9736-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-17484/2024]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at this
stage, these petitions may be disposed off for consideration of the
petitioners’ representations by the State with liberty to revive, in
case, the grievance is not redressed.
5. Learned Advocate General would submit that if any
representations are made, the State would examine the same.
6. Taking into consideration the nature of exercise required to
be undertaken which involves financial implications also, the State
may constitute a Committee of Experts which shall examine the
grievance of the pensioners-petitioners. The Committee may
submit its recommendations to the State and it will be open for
the State to take such decision as it considers appropriate in the
matters.
7. Taking into consideration that grievance has been raised by
those who are retired employees, the Committee shall endeavour
to submit its report within a period of six months.
8. The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly with liberty to
file fresh petition in case grievance is not redressed.
9. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of
each connected petition.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
MANOJ NARWANI-ANU/49-52
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 10:00:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)