Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Chairman Ministry of Railway, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. With a limited prayer, the instant writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondents to decide his representation within a stipulated time.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21/2020 on 21.07.2023. Counsel submits that at later stage, the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) made judgment “in rem” in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10939/2013 with the following observations and directions:
“11. Now, the question which emerges for consideration of this Court is whether the benefits which have been given to the similarly situated persons by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) can be given to the present petitioners and also to those persons who have not approached this Court by way of filing of any petitions.
12. On various occasions, Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that two equals must be treated equally. Merely because one person has approached this Court, woul
The court established that all similarly situated individuals must receive equal treatment and benefits as per previous judgments, reinforcing the principles of equality and the finality of judicial ....
Entitlement to annual increments upon retirement is based on completed service and good conduct; denial based solely on retirement timing is arbitrary.
The court affirms the applicability of a judgment in rem to similarly placed employees, emphasizing that relief should not be denied based on delay or laches.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that similarly placed persons challenging termination orders should be treated alike, and the benefit of a judgment should be extended to them,....
Delay in seeking regularisation can undermine entitlement to benefits when claimants accept prior advantages and do not act in a timely manner.
The obligation of the employer as a model employer in a Welfare State and the application of previous judgments to extend benefits to all similarly circumstanced employees.
The authorities must extend benefits of regularization to similarly situated individuals, adhering to principles of equality and prior judicial decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
