Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41061] (1 of 5) [CW-16605/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16605/2024
1. Manohar Singh S/o Sawrup Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
2. Narpat Singh S/o Daulat Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Vpo Harsani, District Bikaner, Rajasthan (Clis).
3. Ispak Khan S/o Iman Khan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Bhambhara, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
4. Mohibdeem S/o Nihal Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Mangliyawas, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
5. Mahindra Singh S/o Udai Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Vpo Kunda, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
6. Lakshita Bhati D/o Nim Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Vpo Kunda, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
7. Habib Khan S/o Hasam Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Ghantiyali, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
8. Hukam Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Sewda, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
9. Vir Singh S/o Sawrup Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Vpo Pithla, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
10. Loon Singh S/o Kanwraj Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Vpo Magra, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
11. Roshan Ali S/o Kane Khan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo
Khuvdi, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
12. Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Shaitan Singh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Village Dhanari Khurd, Tehsil Baori, District
Jodhpur (Clis)
13. Jitendra S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Dhanari Kala, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur
Rajasthan. (Clis).
14. Raju Singh Rathore S/o Jog Singh Rathore, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Village Dhanari Khurd, Post Dhanari Kala,
Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur (Clis).
15. Shankar Lal Jangid S/o Bal Chand, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Lachari, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
(Clis)
16. Hanumana Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Village Rodu, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan. (Clis)
17. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Methri, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-Kuchaman
Rajasthan. (Clis)
(Downloaded on 08/10/2024 at 09:54:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41061] (2 of 5) [CW-16605/2024]
18. Jethmal Barwar S/o Shri Beerma Ram Barwar, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Dhyawa, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan. (Clis)
19. Nirmal Singh Jodha S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Dabri, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman Rajasthan. (Clis)
20. Ramniwas Meghwal S/o Shri Khiwa Ram Meghwal, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Village Bochi, Post Ganeri, Tehsil
Nechwa, District Sikar. (Clis).
21. Khuman Singh Harijan S/o Gopiram Harijan, Aged About
50 Years, R/o Charanwas, Post Netarwas, District Sikar.
(Clis).
22. Manoj Kumar S/o Mohan Das Swami, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Bhilal (Khorandi) Post Jijoth, Tehsil Kuchaman,
District Deedwana-Kuchaman. (Clis).
23. Raju Ram S/o Godhu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Sabalpura, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman. (Clis).
24. Khushanud Ahmed S/o Hameed Khan, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Sufiya Mohalla Sherani Abadi, Tehsil Chhoti
Khatu, District Deedwana-Kuchaman. (Clis).
25. Rajni Sain D/o Mal Chand Sain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Nalot, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman. (Clis).
26. Prahlad Rai Meena S/o Chhotu Ram, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Kachhwa, Via Nechhwa, District Sikar. (Clis).
27. Rajendra Kumar S/o Prabhu Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Baral, Vila Shishu - Ranoli, District Sikar. (Clis).
28. Sohanlal S/o Moolchand, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Meeran, Tehsil Nechhwa, District Sikar. (Clis).
29. Hari Singh S/o Prithvi Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar. (Clis).
30. Jugraj Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
31. Raghuveer Singh S/o Bhur Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
32. Gordhan Lal S/o Hazari Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
33. Ram Narayan Tanwar S/o Mool Chand Tanwar, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
34. Bhammu Singh S/o Shri Bane Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Tehsil Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
35. Suresh Chand S/o Kallu Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Tehsil Manohar Thana, Dist. Jhalawar (Clis).
(Downloaded on 08/10/2024 at 09:54:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41061] (3 of 5) [CW-16605/2024]
36. Hariom Sharma S/o Ramkhiladi Sharma, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Bansrai, District Dholpur. (Clis).
37. Vinod Kumar S/o Brijendra Singh Panwar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Momodhan, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur.
(Clis).
38. Munna Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kedar Sharma, Aged About
57 Years, R/o Village Nagla Mau, Post Mahu Gulawali,
Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur. (Clis).
39. Rakesh Kumar S/o Gopal Lal Tailor, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Kothari Mohalla, Devriya, District Bhilwara. (Clis).
40. Indira Kichra W/o Rakesh Kumar Tailor, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Kothari Mohalla, Village Post
Devriya, District Bhilwara. (Clis).
41. Saddik Mohammad S/o Gani Mohammad, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Bagoriya, Tehsil Raipur, District
Bhilwara. (Clis).
42. Shri Bhagwan S/o Shri Ramdayal, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Village Jheel, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur. (Clis).
43. Deau Swarankar S/o Ram Lal Swarankar, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Gram Khot, Tehsil Raipr, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan. (Blis).
----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, Bikaner (Raj.).
7. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Jaisalmer (Raj.).
8. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Jodhpur (Raj.).
9. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
(Downloaded on 08/10/2024 at 09:54:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:41061] (4 of 5) [CW-16605/2024]
Education, Deedwana-Kuchaman (Raj.).
10. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Sikar (Raj.).
11. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Jhalawar (Raj.).
12. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Karouli (Raj.).
13. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Dholpur (Raj.).
14. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/10/2024
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
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 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 counterparts
have been accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing
the requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., C.L.I.S, D.L.I.S., A.D.L.M.
[2024:RJ-JD:41061] (5 of 5) [CW-16605/2024]
and B.C.A, they are not being considered eligible for appointment
as Panchayat 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
representations (Annexure-7) before the competent authority for
redressal thereof, which have remained pending till date without
being taken up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the
competent authority be directed to decide 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
representations of the petitioners (Annexure-7) by passing an
appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.
7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
53-SanjayS/Nikita/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
