Rajasthan High Court
Smt.Krishna Devi Mishra vs Director Of Education, Bikaner ... on 23 February, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:9450]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7583/2006
Smt. Krishna Devi Mishra W/o Late Shri Avadesh Chandra
Mishra, Budha Gate, The. Deeg, Dist. Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Director Of Education Elementary Education, Bikaner
2. Zila Shikha Adhikari, Prathmik Shikha, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Songara
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
23/02/2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"a. That the petitioner may be held
entitled to get the benefits of salary, annual
grade increments, fixation under revised new
pay scales declared from time to time
20.02.2001 to 31.07.2006.
b. That respondent may kindly be directed
to grant regular salary, pension, gratuity and
cash payment of unutilized P.L. alongwith 24%
interest per annam. Respondents may further
be directed to considered the petitioner for next
promotion.
c. That Any other appropriate writ order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstances
may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner."
2. After arguing at some length, counsel for the petitioner has
made a limited prayer that the petitioner may be allowed an
[2024:RJ-JP:9450] (2 of 4) [CW-7583/2006]
opportunity to make a representation to the competent authority
for redressal of her grievances which have been raised in the
present petition.
3. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the
petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority.
4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024 has observed as
under:-
"In addition to the aforesaid, it was
argued that it has become a regular practice of
the State to lend a deaf ear to the
representations preferred by the aggrieved
parties, thereby leaving them with no option,
but to knock at the doors of this Court at the
very instance. The said practice further
detonates the financial health of the already
aggrieved litigants, as they are born with the
cost of litigation.
Neither was the learned counsel for the State
able to dispute the fact of service of the
representation dated 23.08.2023, nor was he able
to furnish any explanation qua the factum of non-
consideration of the representation by the
respondent-State.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:9450] (3 of 4) [CW-7583/2006]
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 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 respondents, 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
[2024:RJ-JP:9450] (4 of 4) [CW-7583/2006]
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 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."
5. In view of the observations made by the Co-ordinate
Bench, it is expected from the respondent-authorities that in
case the petitioner submits a representation before them, same
may be decided by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed.
Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay
application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /77
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
