Hari Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 7534 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7534 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hari Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:36342]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14384/2024

1.       Hari Singh S/o Kuhmar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 251,
         Khakhra, Guda Kalan, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali, Rajasthan
         (Ntt)
2.       Ruplal Damor S/o Dhuliya Damor, Aged About 35 Years,
         Village Negred Block Gatol, District Banswara, Rajasthan
         (Blis)
3.       Rajendra Singh Kanawat S/o Ganpat Singh Kanawat,
         Aged About 36 Years, Gram Upareda, Tehsil Banera,
         District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Blis)
4.       Kailash Chandra Lodwal S/o Mitthu Lal Bairwa, Aged
         About 29 Years, Gram Upareda, Tehsil Banera, District
         Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (Blis)
5.       Anusuya Devi, Aged About 38 Years, Ward No.45, Near
         Saini       Garden,     Surat      Garh,       District       Sriganganagar,
         Rajasthan. (Blis)
6.       Rabendra Vathm S/o Munna Lal, Aged About 42 Years,
         Ward No.36, Tehsil Surat Garh, District Sriganganagar,
         Rajasthan (Blis)
7.       Shivkumar S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, 18K,
         Bhaira Ram Are Ke Pas Chak Rajasar, District Hanuman
         Garh, Rajasthan (Blis)
8.       Kalawati Sharma W/o Ashish Pancholi, Aged About 41
         Years, Azad Nagar, 13/127 E-Sector, District Bhilwara,
         Rajasthan (Pgdca)
9.       Kailash Chandra Regar S/o Nanu Ram Regar, Aged About
         41 Years, Vpo Potlan, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara,
         Rajasthan (Blis)
10.      Anjali Maratha D/o Praveen Rao Maratha, Aged About 32
         Years,       Gram     Panchayat          Gunjol,           Panchayat   Samiti
         Khamnor, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan (Blis)
11.      Sanjiv Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 39 Years,
         Village Post Chandwa, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu,
         Rajasthan (Blis/pgdca)
12.      Parmanand Jangir S/o Radhe Shyam Jangir, Aged About
         33 Years, Gram Post Dhanuri, Tehsil Malsisar, District
         Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Pgdca)


                        (Downloaded on 03/09/2024 at 08:59:07 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:36342]                   (2 of 4)                         [CW-14384/2024]


13.      Kapil Kumar S/o Kamal Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
         Bhooriwas Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (Pgdca)
                                                                   ----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, Pali (Raj.).
7.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Banswara (Raj.).
8.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Bhilwara (Raj.).
9.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
10.      The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
11.      The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Rajsamand (Raj.).
12.      The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents


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



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

[2024:RJ-JD:36342] (3 of 4) [CW-14384/2024]

Order

02/09/2024

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1042/2024 (Ranjeet 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 dated23.05.2023 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

[2024:RJ-JD:36342] (4 of 4) [CW-14384/2024]

authority be directed to decided 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 petitioner (Annexure-7) by passing an appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

4. The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

Consequently, the competent authority is directed to deal with

petitioners' representation (annexure-7) by passing appropriate

order in accordance with law.

5. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J 289-chhavi/-