Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Purushottam Narayan Rao vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2023
1. Purushottam Narayan Rao S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Rao,
Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 91 - D, Shiv Shakti
Vihar, Opposite Benarl Railway Station Boytawala, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Shri Roshan Lal Sharma,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 18, Opposite E-168,
Meena Krishi Farm, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Satyendra Kumar Nama S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Nama, Aged
About 56 Years, Resident Of 251, Behind Rseb,
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj Nimbar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar
circumstances and similar matters, the Division Bench of this
Court in The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
Vs. Narendra Kumar Boolchandani & Ors.; D.B. Special Appeal
Writ No.362/2020 along with connected matters, while considering
the aspect that the issue in question has arisen in large number of
cases and the Government has accepted the stand and granted
(2 of 3) [CW-414/2023]
the benefits, disposed of the appeals with the following
directions:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, however,
submitted that the issue is arising in large number
of cases and in several departments, the
Government has accepted the stand and granted
the benefits. If the petitioners are not granted
similar benefits, it would amount to discriminatory
treatment. Whatever be the grievance of the
petitioners they can be resolved at the level of the
administration or by the Court through bipartite
hearing.
In view of the peculiar circumstances, these
appeals are disposed of by permitting the
Government to take into account the
representations already made or to be filed by any
of the petitioners within one month. In the process,
the authorities will bear in mind the stand taken by
the department in similar cases. Such
representations would be decided in accordance
with law unmindful of the observations and
directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned orders. Eventually, if the grievances of
the petitioner still survive after the Government
decision, it is open for the petitioners to seeks
redressal thereafter in accordance with law."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present
writ petition of the petitioners may also be disposed of in light of
the above mentioned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents also agrees to the said
submission.
(3 of 3) [CW-414/2023]
4. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with the same directions as issued by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Boolchandani
(supra).
5. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
181-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
