Anil Chandwani vs The State Of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 356/2023

1. Anil Chandwani S/o Shri Sanmukh Das, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of F83, Gali No. 4, Dream Home, Chandraverdai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

2. Sudha Rathore W/o Shri Bhim Singh Rathore, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Painter Punam Ki Gali, Naya Bada Police Line, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. Shailendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Pavan Kumar Jain, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Chawani Bazar, Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. Mahadev Das Sindhi S/o Shri Nanak Ram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of S-31 A, Mitra Niwas Colony, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Registrar.

3. The District Collector, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. The District Collector, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

5. The District Collector, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 06/01/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances and similar matters, the Division Bench of this Court in The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner Vs. Narendra Kumar Boolchandani & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.362/2020 along with connected matters, while considering the aspect that the issue in question has arisen in large number of cases and the Government has accepted the stand and granted the benefits, disposed of the appeals with the following directions:-

                                                                                 (2 of 2)                [CW-356/2023]



                                              "Learned   counsel       for     the     petitioners,    however,

submitted that the issue is arising in large number of cases and in several departments, the Government has accepted the stand and granted the benefits. If the petitioners are not granted similar benefits, it would amount to discriminatory treatment. Whatever be the grievance of the petitioners they can be resolved at the level of the administration or by the Court through bipartite hearing.

In view of the peculiar circumstances, these appeals are disposed of by permitting the Government to take into account the representations already made or to be filed by any of the petitioners within one month. In the process, the authorities will bear in mind the stand taken by the department in similar cases. Such representations would be decided in accordance with law unmindful of the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders. Eventually, if the grievances of the petitioner still survive after the Government decision, it is open for the petitioners to seeks redressal thereafter in accordance with law."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition of the petitioners may also be disposed of in light of the abovementioned judgment.

3. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is disposed of with the same directions as issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Boolchandani (supra).

(DINESH MEHTA),J 254-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)