Dharmendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10864 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10864 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:16900]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6919/2025

1. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Tyagi Nagar, Village Post Itawa, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota Rajasthan (Blis).

2. Rajendra Poter S/o Madanlal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Boss Colony, Sultanpur, District Kota (Raj.) (Blis).

3. Pawan Kumar S/o Tejmal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vpo Amarpura, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj) (Clis).

4. Satish Meena S/o Ram Kumar Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 42, Near Hanuman Temple, Darabaji, District Kota, (Raj) (Blis).

5. Khagendra Nagar S/o Ramesh Chand Nagar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Dabar, Post Sarola, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.) (Blis).

6. Omprakash Suman S/o Shri Nathulal Suman, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kot Sua, Tehsil Digod, District Kota (Raj.) (Blis).

7. Mohammad Imran S/o Shri Mansoor Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Kotsua, District Kota (Blis).

8. Balmukund Meena S/o Shri Roop Chand, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Nonera, District Kota (Raj.) (Blis).

9. Mukesh Kumar Khati S/o Shri Babulal Khati, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Meena Basti, Khedli Khushk, Lakh Sanija, District Kota Rajasthan (Blis).

10. Kailash Parihar S/o Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Behind Jain Mandir, Geta Road, Itawa, District Kota Rajasthan (Blis).

11. Bal Chand Rathore S/o Bhairoo Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 185, Rathore Gali Bus Stand, Mathaniya, Block Sunel, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

12. Bhanwar Singh Jhala S/o Hukam Singh Jhala, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Modi, Raipur Karodiya, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

13. Suresh Chand Patidar S/o Onkar Lal Patidar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Patidar Mohalla Osav, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

[2025:RJ-JD:16900] (2 of 4) [CW-6919/2025]

14. Shree Ram Mehar S/o Kishan Lal Mehar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Mehar Mohalla Osav, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

15. Ilamdeen S/o Habibkhan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kesarpura, Post Badnava, Tehsil Patodi, District Barmer, Rajasthan (Clis).

16. Ghevar Chand Sharma S/o Hadaman Sagar, Aged About 40 Years, Rio Dantina, Tehsil Khimsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan (Clis).

17. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Vpo Thana, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan (Clis).

18. Khan Singh Solanki S/o Nahar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bhawanipura, Post Negarh, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan (Clis).

19. Ramesh Gurjar S/o Kishor Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Nehdi, Post Faleda, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan (Clis).

20. Heera Lal Nagar S/o Gajanand Nagar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Moondla, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

21. Mohan Lal Meghwal S/o Badri Lal Meghwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Sindhni, Post Mundla, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Clis).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Barmer (Raj.).

5. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Kota (Raj.).

[2025:RJ-JD:16900] (3 of 4) [CW-6919/2025]

6. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Jhalawar (Raj.).

7. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Nagaur (Raj.).

8. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Bundi (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

02/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2024 (Praveen

Kumar Paliwal vs State of Rajasthan) has been disposed of by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024.

2. Learned counsel prayed that similar order be passed in

petitioners' case also.

3. In case of Praveen Kumar Paliwal (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 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:16900] (4 of 4) [CW-6919/2025]

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 B.L.I.S., D.L.I.S and C.L.I.S., 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.

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.