Sahajad Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40590)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8675 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8675 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sahajad Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40590) on 1 October, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:40590]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7996/2024

1.       Sahajad Ahmed S/o Abdul Mazid, Aged About 54 Years,
         R/o Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Bikaner (Raj.).
2.       Asphak Hussain Khan S/o Latif Khan, Aged About 51
         Years, R/o Mustafa Shahid Colony, Ward No. 2, Salt Road,
         Didwana, Nagaur (Raj.).
3.       Habibullah Khan S/o Mehbullah Khan, Aged About 48
         Years, R/o Mohalla Jhiri, Ward No. 19, Pirawa, District
         Jhalawar (Raj.).
4.       Nabinoor Khan S/o Gani Mohammad, Aged About 49
         Years, R/o Mohalla Mominpura, Tehsil Sunil, District
         Jhalawara (Raj.).
5.       Abdul Gafoor S/o Suleman, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
         Village Jot Gameti, Post Jotruhalla, Tehsil Pahari, District
         Deeg (Bharatpur) (Raj.).
6.       Shiv Chand Alriya S/o Ram Kumar Alriya, Aged About 58
         Years, R/o Ward No. 28 Fatehpur Shekhawati, District
         Sikar. (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       Secretary, Finance (Budget), Department Of Finance,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
3.       Rajasthan Madarsa Baord, Dr. S.N. Radhakrishnan
         Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur, Through Its
         Secretary.
4.       The Secretary, Department Of Minority And                          Waqf,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s)         :     --



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

01/10/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1042/2024 (Ranjeet

[2024:RJ-JD:40590] (2 of 3) [CW-7996/2024]

Singh Rathore vs State of Rajasthan) has been disposed of by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2024.

2. Learned counsel prayed that similar order be passed in

petitioners' case also.

3. In case of Ranjeet Singh Rathore (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has observed as under :-

"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 paid, notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan vide a letter dated 23.05.2023 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 and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17901/2023) decided on 09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly situated counter parts have been accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing the requisite qualification of C.P.Ed., D.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and BPE, 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 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.

[2024:RJ-JD:40590] (3 of 3) [CW-7996/2024]

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 representations of the petitioner (Annexure-7) by passing an appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.