Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18430) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18430]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6394/2025
1. Amar Gurjar S/o Nanuram, Aged About 36 Years, At
Present Working At P.H.C. Kirap, Block Masuda, District
Beawar.
2. Anil Hans S/o Laxman Hans, Aged About 36 Years, At
Present Working At P.H.C. Kharwar, Block Masuda, District
Beawar.
3. Lalit Kishore S/o Kamal Kishore, Aged About 31 Years, At
Present Working At P.H.C. Kirap, Block Masuda, District
Beawar.
4. Santosh D/o Manrup Meghwal, Aged About 23 Years, At
Present Working JLN Hospital Nagaur, District Nagaur.
5. Manish S/o Shravanram, Aged About 23 Years, At Present
Working As At JLN Govt. Hospital Nagaur, District Nagaur.
6. Vikram Bhati S/o Omprakash Bhati, Aged About 23 Years,
At Present Working At JLN Govt. Hospital Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
7. Mamta Choudhary D/o Rajesh, Aged About 24 Years, At
Present Working At JLN Govt. Hospital Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
8. Anamika Vyas W/o Subhash Vyas, Aged About 40 Years,
At Present Working At JLN Govt. Hospital Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Director (Non-Gazetted), Department Of Medical And
Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Director, (Public Health) Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
6. Additional Director, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:36:32 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18430] (2 of 3) [CW-6394/2025]
7. Nodal Officer, MNDY, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
8. Nodal Officer, MNJY, Medical And Health Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
9. Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limites (Rmsc),
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its
Managing Director.
10. Managing Director, N.h.m. Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
11. Chief Executive Officer, State Health Assurance Agency,
Jaipur.
12. Principal Medical Officer, Beawar, Rajasthan.
13. Chife Medical And Health Officer, Beawar, Rajasthan.
14. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Beawar, Through
Secretary, District Beawar.
15. Principal Medical Officer, Jln Govt. Hospital Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
16. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
17. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Nagaur Through
Secretary, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
Mr. Mrinal Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/04/2025
1. While asserting that the petitioners' case is covered by the
judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by this Court in the case of
Jai Prakash Ghanchi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7273/2020), learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if
the competent authority of the respondents is directed to consider
[2025:RJ-JD:18430] (3 of 3) [CW-6394/2025]
petitioners' representation (which they would be filing within a
period of four weeks from today) in accordance with law in light of
the judgment passed in the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi (supra) so
also in the light of Circular dated 02.09.2020.
2. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the
petitioners to file a fresh representation alongwith requisite
documents and web-copy of the judgment dated 19.01.2021
passed in the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi (supra) and certified
copy of the order instant within a period of four weeks from today.
3. In case, a representation is so addressed, the competent
authority of the respondents shall consider the same in
accordance with law including the judgment cited by the
petitioners, as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight
weeks of receipt thereof.
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same may not
be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a
particular manner.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
3-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
