Sohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10920 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10920 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 August, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 August, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12155/2022

1. Sohanlal S/o Shankarlal, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

2. Gajendra Singh Barath S/o Kandan Barath, Aged About 50 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

3. Indranarayan Pareek S/o Jethmal, Aged About 55 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

4. Girdhariram S/o Jetaram, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

5. Vinod Kumar Haldwani S/o Onkarlal Haldwani, Aged About 58 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

6. Rajendra Singh Gehlot S/o Jagdish Singh Gehlot, Aged About 51 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Mandore, District Jodhpur.

7. Kumbharam Bhati S/o Motiram, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Ghantiyali, Panchayat Samiti, Keru, District Jodhpur.

8. Pemaram Pannusa S/o Bhabootram, Aged About 48 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

9. Ganpatram Bishnoi S/o Kojaram, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Bala, Panchayat Samiti, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

10. Pyarelal S/o Ghevarram, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Peepar, District Jodhpur.

11. Kesaram Parihar S/o Lunaram Parihar, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Jaloda, Panchayat Samiti, Lohavat, District Jodhpur.

12. Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Shyamlal Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Jangubana Ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti, Lohavat, District Jodhpur.

(2 of 4) [CW-12155/2022]

13. Omprakash Jakhar S/o Hanumanram Jakhar, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

14. Rampal Bhati S/o Andaram Bhati, Aged About 48 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

15. Sajjan Singh S/o Sondan, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

16. Ramjivan Deora S/o Rajaram, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Bagoriya, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

17. Hemraj Deora S/o Bherulal Deora, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Paldi Ranawata, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

18. Ramniwas Kumhar S/o Sukharam, Aged About 47 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Nadsar, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

19. Bhiyaram S/o Dhannaram, Aged About 45 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat Kudi, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

20. Shekhar Parihar S/o Narsinghram, Aged About 49 Years, Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat, Raymalvara, Panchayat Samiti, Bapini, District Jodhpur.

21. Vishnunarayan Bissa S/o Kanhaiyalal Bissa, Aged About 56 Years, Presently Posted At Panchayat Training Centre, Dungarpur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Shashank Sharma




                                        (3 of 4)                [CW-12155/2022]


           HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                   Order

26/08/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be

satisfied if a similar order as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 9643/2022; Karani Singh Bika Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr be passed in the present matter.

In Karani Singh Bika's case (supra) it was observed as

under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 3.4.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3141/2015 (Jagdish Chandra Khatik & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which were decided in light of the judgment dated 29.7.2009 rendered in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.773/2009).

The prayer made in the instant writ petition is for grant of first selection scale to the petitioners upon completion of 9 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 with consequential benefits including fixation of pay and arrears.

Upon having examined the facts of the case at hand in context to the factual matrix examined by this Court in Jagdish Bhanoda's case which judgment was later on affirmed uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is satisfied that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the appropriate

(4 of 4) [CW-12155/2022]

authority for ventilating their grievances along with a copy of this order. Upon such representation being received, the appropriate authority shall objectively consider and decide the same in light of ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in Jagdish Bhanoda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.773/2009) by a reasoned speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

In case, the petitioners are found entitled to any monetary/terminal benefits, the same shall be granted to them immediately.

If after the disposal of the representation, any of the petitioners' grievances still survives, they shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy.

No order as to costs.

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief."