Rajasthan High Court
Asha Sharma W/O Narendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:16232) on 5 April, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:16232]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4984/2024
Asha Sharma W/o Narendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Chikna Fursh, Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Sanskrit Education Department,
Directorate Of Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Principal, Govt. Varistha Upadhyay Sanskrit School,
Indroli, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
Mr. Aamir Khan
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
05/04/2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with
the following prayers:-
"i) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby direct the respondents to
reimburse/pay due salary w.e.f
12.02.2020 to 05.02.2021 along with
interest.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or directions, the respondents may
kindly be directed to decide the
representation submitted by the
petitioner."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in regard to the
payment of due salary for the period of 12.02.2020 to
(Downloaded on 19/04/2024 at 09:08:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:16232] (2 of 5) [CW-4984/2024]
05.02.2021, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the
respondents-authority on 26.05.2023, but the respondents-
authority have not taken any decision on her representation.
3. After arguing at some length counsel for the petitioner
made a limited prayer that the respondents-authority may be
directed to consider and pass an appropriate order on the
representation submitted by the petitioner for the redressal of her
grievances expeditiously.
4. Considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the
petitioner.
5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Pawan Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 1665/2024) decided on 02.02.2024 has
observed as under:-
"Considering the arguments advanced above, this
Court deems it appropriate to note that the State, by
constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The
State, whilst exercising governance over it's citizens, is
expected to protect and promote the citizen's social
and economic well-being, based on the ideals of equal
and due opportunity and public responsibility for
citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare
the necessities of life.
With the aforementioned duty, comes the
inherent task of being the 'first-responders' to the
statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit
in the capacity of State employees or otherwise.
At the same time, it is noted that the writ court,
whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, employs a discretionary
approach, where in the presence of an alternate and
efficacious remedy, the Courts often ponder in
[2024:RJ-JP:16232] (3 of 5) [CW-4984/2024]
delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority,
better equipped with experts or otherwise, to entertain
the dispute. Resultantly, in service matters, the
primary expert and/or the body possessing the
complete acumen regarding the issue is the State
itself, being one of the parties to the litigation before
the Court.
Therefore, by assiduously addressing the
grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and
acting as first responders, the State can very well do
itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it
substantially. It goes without saying that the State is
patently/obviously not under the responsibility to
address the representations positively in favour of the
aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it
ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their
grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking
orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice,
which may or may not address the aggrieved
employee's concerns to their liking. However, by said
the careful consideration of the representations
received by the State, even if a fraction of the
grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by
the State exchequer as well as the litigating
employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the
State is a party shall reduce immensely.
Even otherwise, the State must take-
away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress
the employee's grievances by way of speaking orders,
passed in response to the representations so preferred
by them.
It also goes without saying that rendering the
representations preferred by the aggrieved employees
mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is
reflective of conduct unbecoming of government
[2024:RJ-JP:16232] (4 of 5) [CW-4984/2024]
servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility
to serve the citizens, including the State
employees, and maintain their confidence in the State.
By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State
shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also
extend the same courtesy to the litigants,
Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way
of reducing litigation costs.
In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is
directed to issue instructions to the State
instrumentalities to consider the representations of
aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of
speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation
is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-
burdened courts.
Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay
due and timely heed to the representation preferred by
the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a
speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is
expected that the principles of natural justice shall be
adhered with."
6. In view of the observations and the directions given by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena
(supra), the respondents are directed to consider the
representation (Annexure-4 with the writ petition) submitted by
the petitioner before it and decide the same by passing a reason
and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. This order has been passed on the basis of the
submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and it goes without
[2024:RJ-JP:16232] (5 of 5) [CW-4984/2024]
saying that the respondents shall verify the facts stated by the
petitioner and take decision in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of.
9. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the
stay application, and pending application/s, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
ARTI SHARMA /31
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
