Surendra Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6143 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26404]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11846/2023

Surendra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Sukhdev Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 126 Kanawato Ka Vas, Punadiya, Tehsil Rani, Mandal, Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Medical Service Corporation Department, Through Its Chairman/managing Director, Gandhi Block, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali, District Pali.

6. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Rani, District Pali.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)           :     -



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

21/08/2023

1. Petitioner present in person submits that he would feel

satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his

representation in the light of judgment dated 20.03.2017,

rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by Pankaj

Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.953/2017.

[2023:RJ-JD:26404] (2 of 2) [CW-11846/2023]

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

of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation within a

period of four weeks from today.

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

aforesaid period, the respondents shall consider and decide the

same in accordance with law including the law laid down by this

Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay (supra); preferably

within six 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.

6. 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.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 112-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)