Monday, 08, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mukta Joshi vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1879 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1879 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mukta Joshi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 February, 2024

     [2024:RJ-JD:9694]

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                                      JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2850/2024
1.        Mukta Joshi W/o Shri Ashok Jooshi, Aged About 38 Years,
          Resident Of- Senior Secondary School Delwada, Tehsil Kankroli,
          District Rajsamand 313324.
2.        Chunni Lal Regar S/o Shri Goma Regar, Aged About 35 Years,
          Resident Of 35 Selaguda, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand
          313332.
3.        Sanjay Meghwal S/o Shri Kamlesh, Aged About 31 Years,
          Resident Of 34 Vpo Bhansol, Block Mavli, District Udaipur
          313204.
4.        Vijay Singh Rajput S/o Shri Fateh Singh Rajput, Aged About 31
          Years, Resident Of - Surji Ka Guda, Jawad, Block Mavli, District
          Udaipur, 313204.
5.        Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Narayn Lal Ji Shukla, Aged About 33
          Years, Resident Of - Mukam Post Partapur, Tehsil Garhi, District
          Banswara 327024.
                                                             ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.        The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School
          Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.        The Secretary, Finance (Budget), Department Of Finance,
          Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.        The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Elementary
          Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4.        The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education,
          Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
5.        The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
6.        The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
          Education, Rajsamand (Raj.).
7.        The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
          Education, Udaipur (Raj.).
8.        The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
          Education, Banswara (Raj.).
9.        The State Project Director, School Education Council, Jaipur
          (Raj.).
                                                          ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Patel.
For Respondent(s)           :


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order 26/02/2024

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

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

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

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

[2024:RJ-JD:9694] (2 of 3) [CW-2850/2024]

paid, notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education,

Rajasthan vide a letter dated 14.04.2023 recommended their case

favourably to Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Department of

Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan.

2. They also rely 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 09.11.2023

pursuant whereto, similarly situated counterparts have been

accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing the

requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., D.L.I.S. and C.L.I.S., they are

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 petitioners at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners also submitted

undated 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 them.

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

respondent competent authority is directed to decide the pending

[2024:RJ-JD:9694] (3 of 3) [CW-2850/2024]

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

appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

(ARUN MONGA),J 237-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter