Manohar Lal Vyas vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11533 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3309/2021

Manohar Lal Vyas S/o Shri Pratap Chand Vyas, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Brampuri, Samdari, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Barmer.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Sub-Division, Siwana, Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjana Jawa

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/07/2021

1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Bohra, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the

respondents are directed to consider his representation, which he

would be filing (within a period of 15 days from today) in the light

of judgment rendered by this Court in Sohan Lal Mathur Vs. State

of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008), decided

on17.11.2008, which has subsequently been confirmed up till the

Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.14932/2012.

(2 of 2) [CW-3309/2021]

2. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to

the petitioner to file representation indicating his pay scale and

ventilating his grievance along with a copy of the judgment dated

17.11.2018 rendered in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) and

a certified copy of the order instant within a period of two weeks

from today.

3. If such representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall consider the same and do the needful in

accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

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

petitioner's 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.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

97-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)