Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Panna Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/012978]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3659/2023
1. Panna Lal S/o Raysinga Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Working At PHC Bhimthal, Dhorimanna, Barmer.
2. Ram Lal S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Working At
RFWC Bhedana, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
3. Mishra Ram Choudhary S/o Foosa Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 30 Years, Working At PHC, Loharwa, Dhorimanna,
District Barmer.
4. Bhera Ram Choudhary S/o Kheraj Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 35 Years, Working At PHC Piparli, Dhorimanna,
District Barmer.
5. Joonja Ram S/o Khema Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Working At PHC Bhadrai, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
6. Maluk Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged About 39 Years,
Working At PHC Bamnor Ameershah, Dhorimanna, District
Barmer.
7. Kheta Ram S/o Derama Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
Working At CHC, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
8. Yakub Khan S/o Kabul Khan, Aged About 24 Years,
Working At PHC Etada, Chohtan, District Barmer.
9. Chinesar S/o Bilal Khan, Aged About 24 Years, Working At
PHC Gohadkatala, Chohtan, District Barmer.
10. Ikbal Khan S/o Anwar Khan, Aged About 22 Years,
Working At CHC Dhanau, Chohtan, District Barmer.
11. Prem Kumar Singh S/o Mehra Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Working At PHC Bodwa, Sindhari, District Barmer.
12. Rahul Kumar S/o Paras Mal, Aged About 26 Years,
Working At PHC Marudi, District Barmer.
13. Umashankar Huda S/o Labhu Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Working At PHC Sarnu, Sindhari, District Barmer.
14. Moola Ram S/o Jetha Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Working
At PHC , Gangela, District Barmer.
15. Shravan Kumar S/o Chhoga Ram, Aged About 32 Years,
Working At PHC Nand, District Barmer.
16. Sharwan Kumar S/o Fata Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Working At PHC Dudaberi, District Barmer.
17. Ashok S/o Pabu Dan, Aged About 36 Years, Working At
PHC Bhadren, District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
[2023/RJJD/012978] (2 of 3) [CW-3659/2023]
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Director, (Public Health) Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Additional Director, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
6. Nodal Officer, Mndy, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7. Nodal Officer, Mnjy, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
8. Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limites (RMSC),
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its
Managing Director.
9. Managing Director, N.H.M. Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
10. Principal Medical Officer, Barmer.
11. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer
12. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Barmer, Through
Secretary, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
02/05/2023
1. Petitioners' grievance is that they were working on contract
basis under the respondents, and they are apprehending
disengagement of their services.
2. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Ranawat, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners would feel satisfied if the
respondents are directed to consider their representation (which
they would be filing) in light of the judgment of this Court dated
19.01.2021, passed in Jai Prakash Ganchi & Ors. Vs. State of Raj.
& Ors.(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7273/2020) and also in light of
circular dated 02.09.2020.
[2023/RJJD/012978] (3 of 3) [CW-3659/2023]
3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the
direction to the petitioners to file a representation, while enclosing
photostat copy of the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi
(supra) and photostat copy of the circular dated 02.09.2020 within
a period of four weeks from today.
4. In case, representation is so addressed, the competent
authority shall do the needful, in accordance with law, preferably
within a period of eight weeks from receipt thereof.
5. 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. The same may not
be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a
particular manner.
6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. 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
petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
69-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
