Harisingh Deval vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9822 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7376/2021

Harisingh Deval S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Kupdawas, Tehsil Bilada, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Project Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan, Medical And Health Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Sirohi, Raj.

                                                                          ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. SK Verma, through Cisco Webex
For Respondent(s)               :



                           JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Judgment

28/06/2021

1. Petitioner's grievance is that he was working under the

Scheme of MMU, providing free medical health services to the

patients visiting health centres, and he is apprehending

disengagement of his services.

2. Mr. Shreekant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied if the respondents

are directed to consider his representation (which he would be

filing) in light of the judgment of this Court dated

19.01.2021,passed in Jai Prakash Ganchi & Ors. Vs. State of Raj.&

(2 of 2) [CW-7376/2021]

Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7273/2020) and also in light of

circular dated 02.09.2020.

3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the

direction to the petitioner to file a representation, while enclosing

photostat copy of the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi

(supra) and photostat copy of the circular dated 02.09.2020 within

a period of four weeks from today.

4. In case, representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall do the needful, in accordance with law, preferably

within a period of eight weeks from receipt thereof.

5. 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.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

75-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)