Shakuntala vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1241 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003543]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 294/2023

Shakuntala W/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Ranga, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Daga Chowk, Opposite Narsingh Temple, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj)

2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)              :     Ms. Anjana Jawa
                                     Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary



                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                          Order

02/02/2023

1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Purohit, 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 on

17.11.2008, which has subsequently been confirmed up till the

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

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

the petitioner to file representation indicating his pay scale which

[2023/RJJD/003543] (2 of 2) [CW-294/2023]

he claims 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.

5. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 123-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)