1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5969/2003 Arun Kumar vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER:- 24.1.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA. Mr.SK Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.SN Tiwari, Dy. GA. . <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999 was submitted by the Union for the benefits of its members, who are employees of the respondent and therein direction was sought against the respondent for payment of increments to the members of the petitioner's association. The said writ petition was allowed by order of this Court dated 20.10.2000. It is stated by the petitioner that benefit has been given to the various employees in pursuance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court issued in the said S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999, and when petitioner sought the same relief, he has been denied vide order dated 26th Dec., 2001 (Annex.6) on the ground that petitioner was not party 2 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's claim has not been denied on the ground that petitioner is not similarly situated person as the persons who were party in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999. However, petitioner's another contention is that petitioner is also member of the said Rastriya Nal Shramik Union who was the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999. It is submitted that when the benefit has been given to the members of the petitioner association of that case then the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit only because of the reason that as per the respondent, the petitioner was not party in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999. It is submitted that this Court allowed the writ petition on the basis of legitimate claim of the employees and the respondent-State as a Welfare State is required to give the benefit to the employees whenever they are found to be entitled for the benefit irrespective of the fact whether they have initiated litigation or not. Learned counsel for the respondent -State vehemently submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner is also similarly situated person with the persons 3 to whom benefit was given and, therefore, unless this issue is examined, the petitioner cannot be given benefit just by following the decision given in another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999. Each candidate is required to be adjudged, may it be, in the light of the decision given by the High Court as each employee has its own merit for relief. Since short controversy involved in this petition with respect to the claim of the petitioner about the benefit, which is made available to the members of the union who preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999, therefore, the respondents are required to examine the candidature of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner is also a similarly situated person as the person to whom the benefit has been given in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999 then the same benefit may be given to the petitioner. The respondent – State is requested to consider the candidature of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and in case, the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person as of the persons to whom benefit has been given in pursuance of the order 4 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1490/1999 then the same benefit be given to the petitioner. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed as mentioned above. (PRAKASH TATIA)J. c.p.goyal/-