Rajeev Jyani vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9213 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajeev Jyani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 October, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:42894]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17685/2024

Rajeev Jyani S/o Subhash Chander, Aged About 37 Years, Village
82,    R.b.    P.o.     Likhmewala,          Tehsil      Raisinghnagar,      District
Sriganganagar.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         School       Education      Department,           Govt.     Of   Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3.       Joint Director, School Education, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s)            :     --



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/10/2024

1. Petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that

the respondents are not giving benefit of ACP on completion of 9

years of services though the petitioner is entitled. Petitioner raised

a grievance that benefit of ACP has been given in other districts

such as Barmer etc., but the Joint Director, Bikaner is not

conferring the same.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation along with relevant

documentary evidence and judgment (if any in this regard) and

certified copy of the order instant before the competent authority

within a period of four weeks from today.

[2024:RJ-JD:42894] (2 of 2) [CW-17685/2024]

3. In case, representation is so addressed, Joint Director,

Bikaner - competent authority shall consider the same, in

accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period

of three months from today.

4. In case, the competent authority is of the view that the

petitioner is not entitled for benefit of ACP as claimed, he shall

pass a speaking order under intimation to the petitioner against

which petitioner's right to take legal remedy shall stand

reserved.

5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

7. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in

the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioner would be entitled to the relief.

(FARJAND ALI),J 195-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)