Rajasthan High Court
Ramavtar And Anr vs State Rural Develp And Panchayati Ors ... on 22 March, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:14698]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17297/2017
1. Ramavtar S/o Shri Govind Ram, R/o Udawas, Tehsil And
District Jhunjhunu Raj.
2. Sunita D/o Shri Mukund Singh, Widow Of Late Shri
Devendra Singh, R/o Village Meelon Ki Dhani, Post
Udawas, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. Additional Commissioner And Joint Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu Raj.
4. District Collector, Jhunjhunu Raj.
5. School Development Management Committee Sdmc,
Gram Udawas, District Jhunjhunu.
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District
Jhunjhunu Raj.
7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jhunjhunu Raj.
8. Gram Sevak Cum Paden Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Udawas,
District Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Choudhary for Mr. Vijay
Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpan Kumar Sharma for Mr. O.P.
Jhajharia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Judgment / Order
22/03/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:14698] (2 of 4) [CW-17297/2017]
1. Counsel for the petitioners made a limited prayer that the
petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to the
concerned respondent- authority for redressal of their grievances.
2. In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the
petitioners, the petitioners are allowed to make a representation
to the concerned respondent-authority for their grievances, which
have been raised in the present writ petition.
3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 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:14698] (3 of 4) [CW-17297/2017]
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:14698] (4 of 4) [CW-17297/2017]
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."
4. In view of the observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in case of Pawan Meena (supra), it is expected from
the concerned respondent-authority that in case the petitioners
submit representation, the same may be considered and disposed
of by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously.
5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay
application and all pending application/s, if any, also stand
disposed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
ARTI SHARMA /116
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
