Dhani Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11363 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhani Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 April, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:18212]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4809/2025

Dhani Ram S/o Shri Rampher, Aged About 61 Years, R/o House
No. 302, Sector No. 6, Ward No. 51, Near Chuna Fatak,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
         Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The       Chief    Engineer,         Water         Resources      (North),
         Hanumangarh-Junction, Hanumangarh.
3.       The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,
         Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4.       The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-Ii,
         Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
5.       The Assistant Engineer, Ghaghar Sub Division, Water
         Resources,             Hanumangarh                 Junction,       District
         Hanumangarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2025
Sita Devi W/o Shri Panna Lal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward
No.    2,   Gali     No.   4,    New      Khunja,        Hanumangarh        District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
         Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The       Chief    Engineer,         Water         Resources      (North),
         Hanumangarh-Junction, Hanumangarh.
3.       The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,
         Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4.       The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-Ii,
         Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
5.       The Assistant Engineer, Ghaghar Sub Division, Water
         Resources,             Hanumangarh                 Junction,       District
         Hanumangarh.

                       (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:52:54 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18212]                   (2 of 3)                        [CW-4809/2025]


                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Chhaba for
                                Mr. J. S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Milap Chopra, AGC



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

09/04/2025

1. Mr. Chhaba, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is squarely

covered by the judgment dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2016 ' Harphool Singh &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in the following terms:-

"Keeping into consideration the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that the present matters do fall within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is a specific case wherein keeping into consideration the said parameters, the Court definitely ought to interfere as here is a clear discrimination between the employees appointed by the same authorities, in the same manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also the same and duties are also identical in all the aspects.

So far as the clarification dated 20.05.2016 is concerned, the contents or the facts of the same were never pleaded in reply to the writ petition nor was the said documents placed on record. Therefore, the same could not have been refuted or controverted by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court is of the specific view that the clarification dated 20.05.2016 cannot beheld to be valid as the same specifically discriminates between two set of employees of the same parent department.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the benefit of the three selection grades to the petitioners on the promotional post of Work Supervisor Gr. I on the same terms, as granted to the Mate of the IGNP Department. The essential orders be

[2025:RJ-JD:18212] (3 of 3) [CW-4809/2025]

passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.

All pending applications also stand disposed of."

2. Mr. Milap Chopra, learned Additional Government Counsel for

the respondent - State submitted that principle issue seems to be

covered by the judgment in the case of Harphool Singh (supra)

but unless the competent authority perused the record, nothing

can be said with certitude.

3. The present writ petitions are, therefore, allowed in light of

the Harphool Singh (supra) while giving liberty to the respondents

to take a decision after examining the record.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 55-56-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)