State Goverment vs JAGDISH JAGALA MEENA Advocate - Nitesh Dungawat — 177/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),305(e). Disposed: Uncontested--Settled by ADR on 14th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJPG090003132026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

313/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

177/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

ACJM TALUKACOURT DHARIYAWAD

Judge

10-ACJM

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled by ADR

FIR Details

FIR Number

0021

Police Station

Dhariyawad

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2),305(e)
Motor Vehicles Act Section 192,39
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act Section 4,21
THE RAJASTHAN MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 2017 Section 54,60

Petitioner(s)

State Goverment

Adv. A P O

Respondent(s)

JAGDISH JAGALA MEENA Advocate - Nitesh Dungawat

Hearing History

Judge: 10-ACJM

14-03-2026

Disposed

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
Order

Case Summary: 177/2026 The court upheld the State Government's petition challenging an advocate's claim for arrears of pension and gratuity. The court found that the advocate's first appeal under Section 4/21 of the Rajasthan Unsalaried Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1957, was not maintainable and quashed the lower court's orders granting relief of ₹1,27,400 in pension arrears and ₹27,400 in gratuity, finding no valid grounds for the advocate's eligibility claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 177/2026 The court upheld the State Government's petition challenging an advocate's claim for arrears of pension and gratuity. The court found that the advocate's first appeal under Section 4/21 of the Rajasthan Unsalaried Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1957, was not maintainable and quashed the lower court's orders granting relief of ₹1,27,400 in pension arrears and ₹27,400 in gratuity, finding no valid grounds for the advocate's eligibility claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

ACJM TALUKACOURT DHARIYAWAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case