The High Court of Rajasthan in a bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sameer Jain held that the state is a welfare state and therefore is the ‘first responder’ to the grievances as posed by the citizens in any regard. It was further opined that the speaking orders are to be passed in cases of employee representation after due consideration so as to undo the act of not paying heed to the representations by the governmental servants.
Brief Facts:
A representation for revocation of suspension and reinstatement in services was filed by the Petitioner but the respondent did not pay any heed to it.
Therefore, this instant petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Respondents did not pai any attention to the grievances posed in the representation and further stated that ignoring the representations of the aggrieved is the State’s common practice.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that since the state is a welfare state it is its duty and responsibility to ‘protect and promote the social and economic well-being of all its citizens’. The Hon’ble Court further stated that in case of citizen's grievances, the State has to act as the ‘first responders’ and therefore substantially reduce litigations even if representations are partially dissolved.
Further, it was expounded that the State who is one of the parties possesses complete acumen regarding the service matter therefore the alternative recourse under Article 226/ Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not be taken. It was further held that the State is not bound to revert affirmatively in a positive manner only rather the duty as per natural justice principles is to provide an ear to the grievance and to pass speaking orders.
It was held that the State should embody within itself the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than portraying the conduct that is unbecoming of public servants. The State and governmental servants must make genuine efforts to deal with the grievances via speaking orders as they shoulder the duty to serve the citizens and retain their confidence in the State.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasonings, the Respondent was directed to pay heed to the representation of the Petitioner and accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Pawan Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sameer Jain
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1665/2024
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. S.S. Raghav, Ajay Rajawat
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
