Mohammed Imran vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9259 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38489]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17735/2023

1.       Mohammed Imran S/o Mohammed Julfikar Ali, Aged
         About 34 Years, Ward No.18, Nader Colony, Ratangarh,
         Churu.
2.       Jagdish Prasad Nai S/o Babu Lal Nai, Aged About 50
         Years, Ward No.13, Bhartiyon Ki Dhani, Ratangarh,
         Churu.
3.       Manoj Kumar Matoliya S/o Radhey Shyam Matoliya, Aged
         About 36 Years, Near Churu Railway Phatak, Ward No.20,
         Ratangarh, Churu.
4.       Tayyab Hussain S/o Mohammed Julfikar Ali, Aged About
         42 Years, Ward No.18, Nader Colony, Ratangarh, Churu.
5.       Taslim Aarif S/o Afjal Hussain, Aged About 44 Years, Naya
         Ward No.18, Masqi Masjid, Ratangarh, Churu.
6.       Krishan Gopal Bhati S/o Keshav Dev Bhati, Aged About 26
         Years, Ward No.10, Behind State School, Ratangarh,
         Churu.
7.       Jairaj Singh Bidawat S/o Surendra Singh Bidawat, Aged
         About 31 Years, Ward No.35, Mochiyon Ke Kue Ke Paas,
         Ratangarh, District Churu.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through 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.       Nodal Officer, Mndy/mnjy, Medical And Health Services,
         Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
6.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh, Churu, Raj.
7.       Medical Officer Incharge, Sub District Hospital, Rajgarh,
         Churu.

                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:43:59 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:38489]                   (2 of 3)                       [CW-17735/2023]


                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Tanwar Singh
For Respondent(s)         :



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                     Order

07/11/2023

1.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners'

grievance is that they were working on contract basis under the

respondents, and they are apprehending disengagement of their

services.

2.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further 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.

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

                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:43:59 PM)
                                    [2023:RJ-JD:38489]                   (3 of 3)                    [CW-17735/2023]



                                   expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same may not

                                   be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

                                   particular manner.

                                   6.    All pending applications also stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

63-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)