Gourav Pahwa vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1158 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002853]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1201/2023

Gourav Pahwa S/o Shri Purushottam Das Pahwa, Aged About 35 Years, R/o District Padampur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Municipal Board, Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar, Through Its Executive Officer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

30/01/2023

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor

v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1952/2019, decided on 06.07.2020, which in turn had relied

on order in the case of Roshan Lal Saini v. State & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.18056/2015, decided on 09.03.2017.

2. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court inter alia directed as under:

"In this view of the matter, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Govt. to decide the matter at the earliest to facilitate issuance of

[2023/RJJD/002853] (2 of 2) [CW-1201/2023]

requisite order of regularization of petitioner's services, strictly in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be undertaken by the State Govt. at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date presentation of this order."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, is not in a position to

dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is

covered by judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra).

4. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner is disposed of, in light of and with similar directions

as given in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra).

5. Stay application also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 110-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)