Noorjahan vs The Principal Medical Officer, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8799 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5633/2021

Noorjahan S/o Mohammad Aarif, Aged About 28 Years, Near Chhoti Maszid, Loharpura, Nagaur (Raj.), Mobile No.9462783837.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Principal Medical Officer, Govt. Jln Hospital, Nagaur, Nagaur.

2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

05/04/2021

1. Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

the petitioner, who was appointed as Cook/Class - IV employee

vide order dated 08.07.2009, is still working on the aforesaid post,

but his services have not been regularised yet.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to

decide his representation for regularisation of services in light of

provisions of Rajasthan Class - IV Service (Recruitment and other

Service Condition) Rules, 1999 and the order of Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan &

(2 of 2) [CW-5633/2021]

Ors : SB Civil Writ Petition No.12571/2015, decided on

25.11.2016.

2. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation, along

with photo-stat/web copy of the order dated 25.11.2016 in the

case of Om Prakash (supra) and a certified copy of the order

instant within a period of two weeks.

3. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid

period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the

same in accordance with law and in light of judgment of Om

Prakash (supra); however, in no case later than twelve weeks from

the date of receipt of the representation.

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 68-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)