Dharamchand Dhart vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14669 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14669 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dharamchand Dhart vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 December, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14088/2022

1. Dharamchand Dhart S/o Shri Peerdan Dhart, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Near Ambedkar Circle, Udasar, District Bikaner.

2. Mohanlal S/o Shri Rawatram Gusaenwal, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of House No. 3-E-22, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

3. Mohammad Salim S/o Jalaludeen Panwar, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Behind Bal Bharti Schoo, Dhobi Talai, Bikaner.

4. Shivchand S/o Shri Jhanwarlal Nayak, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Nayak Mohalla, Gogagate, Bikaner.

5. Rajendra Kumar Swami S/o Shri Sriram Krishna Swami, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Near Pushkarna School, Inside Eadgaah Bari, Bikaner.

6. Chunnilal Dhart S/o Shri Peerdan Dhart, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ambedkar Bhawan, Udasar, District Bikaner.

----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, Bikaner.

3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bikaner, District Bikaner.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Mukesh Vyas
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. K.K.Bissa



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

14/12/2022

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged

the communication dated 02.08.2022, made by Joint Secretary

(First), Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department. Jaipur.

(2 of 4) [CW-14088/2022]

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners filed a writ petition

being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6768/2021, inter alia asserting

that petitioners' case is covered by the case of Jagdish Bhanoda

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.773/2009) decided on 29.07.2009.

3. However, at the request of learned counsel for the

petitioners, the petition came to be disposed of with a direction to

the petitioners to file a representation along with the copy of the

judgment in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda (supra), with the

corresponding direction to the competent authority of the State to

decide the representation in accordance with law, including the

case of Jagdish Bhanoda (supra).

4. The order dated 29.06.2021, passed by this Court in the

earlier round of litigation reads thus:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition, decided by this Court in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (judgment dated 29.07.2009) which has attained finality till the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issue to the respondents to consider their representation (which they would be filling in two weeks) expeditiously.

The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation along with web copy of the order instant and photocopies of the judgments which they wish to rely upon.

On receipt of the representation, competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of 12 weeks of the date of receiving the representation.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance.

(3 of 4) [CW-14088/2022]

The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly."

5. In furtherance of petitioners' representation, by way of

communication dated 02.08.2022, the Joint Secretary directed the

respondent No.2 to decide the representation, not in light of

judgment in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda. Said communication

reads thus:-

"mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr izklafxd i= ds Øe esa ys[k gS fd %& 1- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izdj.k dks txnh"k Hkk.kksnk ds vuqlkj fuLrkfjr djus ds funsZ"k ugha fn;s gS cfYd fu;ekuqlkj fuLrkj.k ds funsZ"k fn;s gSaA 2- iapk;r jkt foHkkx ds vkns"k Øekad 2776 fnukad 14-02-

2012 ds vuqlkj xzke lsod ,oa insu lfpo dks 9 o'kZ dh fu;fer lsok djus ij osrueku 5000&8000 esa izFke p;fur osrueku fnukad 31-08-2006 ls ns; gSA 3- foRr foHkkx dh vkbZ-Mh u0 332100571 fnukad 03-09-2021 ds vuqlkj NBs osru vk;ksx esa N% ekg dh fujUrj o larks'kizn lsok iw.kZ gksus ij okf'kZd osruo`f) ns; gS] Jh O;kl dks vkxkeh osruo`f) fnukad 01-07-2017 ls ns; gksxh (Opted Revised Pay Scale w.e.f. 03-02-2006)A vr% rn~uqlkj izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k lqfuf"pr fd;k tkosA ;g l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA"

6. It is rather surprising to note that the respondents, including

the Joint Secretary has not understood the import and purport of

the order dated 29.06.2021 and the direction contained therein

which was explicit. He effectively caused petitioners'

representation to be rejected by inter alia observing that the Court

has directed the respondents to decide the representations as per

law, but not covered the case of the petitioners by the judgment

rendered in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda (supra).

7. It is all the more surprising that the Joint Secretary has

rendered such advice to the respondent No.2, especially when on

(4 of 4) [CW-14088/2022]

25.07.2022, the respondent No.2 had already accorded the

benefit as directed by the Court in matters (and subsequent

representations) of similarly situated persons.

8. In the opinion of this Court, the approach of the Joint

Secretary is absolutely unprofessional and cavalier to say the

least.

9. If an officer at the level of the Joint Secretary cannot even

understand that the expression "according to the law" would

obviously mean the law as interpreted and settled in the judgment