Madhusudan vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9370 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Madhusudan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 October, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:43855]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      AT JODHPUR.
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17699/2024

Madhusudan S/o Bhanupratap, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Opposite Adarsh Cinema, Ward No. 15, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self
         Department,     Government            Of     Rajasthan,     Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Local Self Government, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       The    Municipal       Council,     Sriganganagar,        Through     Its
         Commissioner.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Kuldeep Prajapat.
For Respondent(s)           :    Ms Jaya Dadhich, AGC



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

24/10/2024

1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is

squarely covered by judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor

v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1952/2019, decided on 06.07.2020, which in turn had relied

on order in the case of Roshan Lal Saini v. State & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.18056/2015, decided on 09.03.2017.

2. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court inter alia directed as under:

"In this view of the matter, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State Govt. to decide the matter at

[2024:RJ-JD:43855] (2 of 2) [CW-17699/2024]

the earliest to facilitate issuance of requisite order of regularization of petitioner's services, strictly in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be undertaken by the State Govt. at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date presentation of this order."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, is not in a position to

dispute the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is

covered by judgment in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra).

4. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by

the petitioner is disposed of, in light of and with similar directions

as given in the case of Jitendra Kumar Tailor (supra).

5. 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 511-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)