Sumer Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1878 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sumer Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 February, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:9794]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2697/2024
Sumer Ram S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Ostara, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
         Elementary Education Department, State Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner.
3.       The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
         Jodhpur.
4.       The Block Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
         Bhopalgarh, District - Jodhpur.
5.       The Panchayat Elementary Education Officer And
         Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Rudiya,
         Block Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

26/02/2024

1. Grievance of the petitioner herein, arises out of the

inaction/non-consideration on the part of the respondents to

consider his claim of re-fixation of his monthly pay at the rate of

Rs.16,900/- as against Rs.10,400/- which is being currently paid,

notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education,

Rajasthan vide a letter dated 24.04.2023 recommended their case

favourably to Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Department of

Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan.

2. They also rely on a judgment rendered by this Court in case

of Jassa Ram Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17901/2023) decided on

[2024:RJ-JD:9794] (2 of 2) [CW-2697/2024]

09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly situated counterparts

have been accorded benefit. He claims that despite his passing the

requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., D.L.I.S. and C.L.I.S., he is not

being considered eligible for appointment as physical education

teachers in the Elementary Education Department in the higher

pay bracket as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner also submitted

representation (Annexure-7) before the competent authority for

redressal thereof, which has remained pending till date without

being taken up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the

competent authority be directed to decided the same by passing

appropriate administrative orders expeditiously.

4. Request seems to be fair.

5. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the

requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is

required to be filed by him.

6. In the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed of. The

respondent competent authority is directed to decide the pending

representation of the petitioner (Annexure-7) by passing an

appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

(ARUN MONGA),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.66

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)