Amit Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8264 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33905]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15716/2023

Amit Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gulpura, District Churu At Present Posting Sub District Hospital, Rajgarh, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Public Heatlh 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.

                                                ----Respondents


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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

09/10/2023

1. Petitioner's grievance is that he was working on contract basis

under the respondents and he is apprehending disengagement of

his services.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

would feel satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider his

representation (which he would be filing) in light of the judgment

dated 19.01.2021 passed by this Court in the case of Jai Prakash

Ganchi & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ

[2023:RJ-JD:33905] (2 of 2) [CW-15716/2023]

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 petitioner 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 193-/Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)