Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ashok parihar, j.1. son of petitioner no. 1 died while in service of respondent no. 3 on 24.4.1999. at the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of class-iv. the deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner no. 2 as his son during his life time. as per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner no. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner no. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner no. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of civil judge (jr. div.), gangapur city on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner no. 2 as adopted son of the deceased ugrasen. apart.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Ashok Parihar, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '758927',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
			'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '758927',
		(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Vishni and anr Mst Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 758927 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '758927',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003',
		'appellant' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Rajnish Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2005-01-18',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Ashok Parihar, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.</p><p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.</p><p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.</p><p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.</p><p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.</p><p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '758927',
	(int) 1 => 'vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/758927/vishni-mst-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Ashok Parihar, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Son of petitioner No. 1 died while in service of respondent No. 3 on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, the deceased was working on the post of Class-IV. The deceased never married, however, adopted petitioner No. 2 as his son during his life time. As per the succession certificate issued by a competent court on 10.4.2000, petitioner No. 1 has received the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits except for family pension on 4.12.2003. Since the compassionate appointment was also claimed by petitioner No. 2, a decree of declaration was also obtained by petitioner No. 2 from a competent court and the same was granted accordingly by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gangapur City on 5.5.2001 declaring petitioner No. 2 as adopted son of the deceased Ugrasen. Apart from claiming compassionate appointment for petitioner No. 2, the petitioners have claimed interest on the amount of gratuity, which was paid after a considerable delay as also the family pension for petitioner No. 1 being mother of the deceased.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondents have disputed the adoption of petitioner No. 2 and have also submitted that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for family pension since the parents do not come under the definition of family. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of death of the deceased petitioner No. 2, even if treated as legally adopted son, was minor. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be given.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There is no dispute that the respondent Agricultural Marketing Board has adopted the pension rules as applicable on the employees of the State Government. An amendment was made in the Pension Rules of 1996 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 with effect from 1.10.1996 by which the parents who were wholly dependent upon the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee have left behind neither a widow nor a child, were inserted in the definition of family under the Rules of 1996. The deceased employee died on 24.4.1999. At the time of death, only the mother and the minor adopted son were alive. As such, in my opinion, the mother having been included in the definition of family prior to the death of the deceased employee, is entitled for family pension as per the relevant rules. So far as interest on the amount of gratuity is concerned, the deceased died on 24.4.1999 whereas the payment was made on 4.12.2003. Even the succession certificate had been issued by the competent court way back on 10.4.2000 itself. Under the circumstances, I find no justification for denying interest on the amount of gratuity to be paid to petitioner No. 1. As per pleadings of the parties, petitioner No. 2 now has attained majority. A competent court has already declared him to be legally adopted son of the deceased. Thus, in my opinion, petitioner No. 2 is also entitled for compassionate appointment.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice as also equity, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay family pension to petitioner No. 1 from the date she is entitled for the same in accordance with the relevant rules. Respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of family pension from the date it was due till the arrears are paid and on the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 10.4.2000 till the amount has been paid. Compassionate appointment on appropriate post may also be given to petitioner No. 2. Necessary consideration be made and orders be passed within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and entire payment, as ordered above, be made within 30 days thereafter. Looking to the mechanical attitude and pathetic approach of the concerning authorities, I deem it proper to allow a cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the petitioner, which may be paid alongwith the arrears, as ordered above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Service
Court	Rajasthan High Court
Decided On	Jan-18-2005
Case Number	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 843 of 2003
Judge	Ashok Parihar, J.
Reported in	RLW2005(3)Raj1938; 2005(2)WLC134
Acts	Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
Appellant	Vishni and anr. (Mst.)
Respondent	State of Rajasthan and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Rajnish Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Inderjeet Singh, Adv. and; H.V. Nandwana, Dy. GA
Disposition	Petition allowed

Vishni and anr. (Mst.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment