Rajasthan High Court

Mohan Singh S/O Mavasiram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:9997) on 27 February, 2024

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:9997]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2197/2020

1.       Mohan Singh S/o Mavasiram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
         Outside Of The Surajpole Gate, Saini Mohalla, Bharatpur
         District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) At Present Working On The
         Post Of Ivth Class Employee At Office Of Joint Director,
         Elementary Education, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
2.       Jajveer Singh @ Jagveer S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Aged
         About 58 Years, R/o Ward No.15, Uchchain Tehsil Roopvas
         District Bharatpur(Rajasthan) At Present Working On The
         Post Of 1Vth Class Employee At Government Girls Senior
         Secondary School, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
3.       Brijendra Singh S/o Surjaram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
         Village Atari Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur(Rajasthan)
         At Present Working On The Post Of Post Of 1Vth Class
         Employee      At     Government          Adarsh           Senior    Secondary
         School, Mai, Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
4.       Puran S/o Shri Raman Lal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years,
         R/o        Village       Atari          Tehsil            Nadbai       District
         Bharatpur(Rajasthan) At Present Working On The Post Of
         Post Of 1Vth Class Employee At Government Senior
         Secondary School, Atari, Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur
         (Rajasthan)
5.       Kusumlata W/o Kirodilal D/o Girraj, Aged About 62 Years,
         R/o Nadiya Mohalla, Near Dayaram Pathshala, Bharatpur
         District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) At Present Retired From
         The    Post   Of     1Vth     Class      Employee           At     Government
         Secondary       School,       Civil     Lines       Gopalgarh         Mohalla,
         Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
6.       Kanchan Lal S/o Shri Parbhati, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
         Village Khoh Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur At Present
         Retired From The Post Of Ivth Class Employee District
         Bharatpur (Rajathan) At Government Adarash Senior
         Secondary School, Khoh, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
7.       Jagdish S/o Daulat, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village
         Helak Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur ( Rajasthan) At
         Present Retired From The Post Of Ivth Class Employee
         District Bharatpur (Rajathan) At Government Adarash
         Senior Secondary School, Helak Tehsil Kumher District


                       (Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:25:08 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:9997]                         (2 of 5)                           [CW-2197/2020]


         Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
8.       Guman Singh S/o Kharag Singh, Aged About 54 Years,
         R/o     Village      Biloth     Tehsil       Nadbai      District    Bharatpur
         (Rajasthan) At Present Working On The Post Of Junior
         Assistant At The Office Ofgovernment Senior Secondary
         School, Karhi Block And Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur
         (Rajasthan)
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State      Of    Rajasthan,         Through         Secretary,       Secondary
         Education          Department               Govt.      Secretariat,       Jaipur
         (Rajasthan
2.       Secretary,        Elementary          Education         Department,        Govt.
         Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3.       Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4.       Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
5.       District        Education        Officer,       Secondary        Education-I,
         Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
6.       District        Education         Officer,       Elementary          Education,
         Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. T.C. Vyas
For Respondent(s)              :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

27/02/2024

1. Counsel for the petitioners after arguing at some length

submits that the petitioners may be permitted to make a

representation to the respondents for the redressal of their

grievances in view of the fact that in a similar situation, this Court

has already considered the issue raised in the present writ petition

[2024:RJ-JP:9997] (3 of 5) [CW-2197/2020]

in case of Murari Lal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8174/2014 decided on 23.09.2014.

2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 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:-

"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.

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.

[2024:RJ-JP:9997] (4 of 5) [CW-2197/2020]

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 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

[2024:RJ-JP:9997] (5 of 5) [CW-2197/2020]

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."

3. In view of the observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in case of Pawan Meena (supra), on submissions of

representation by the petitioners before the respondent-

authorities, it is expected from the respondent-authorities to

consider the representation made by the petitioners and pass an

appropriate, reasoned and speaking order expeditiously.

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

5. Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay

application and all other pending application/s, if any, also stand

disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

ARTI SHARMA /97