Jagdish Chandra Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18992)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11869 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11869 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagdish Chandra Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18992) on 17 April, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:18992]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7416/2025
Jagdish Chandra Vaishnav S/o Ram Chandra Vaishnav, Aged
About 63 Years, Bhagatiya Mohalla, Sadar Bazar Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
         Department Of Personnel And Training Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Administrative
         Reforms (Group-3), Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The Secretary (Finance), Finance Department, State Of
         Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4.       The Registrar, Revenue Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5.       The District Collector, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Surendra Singh Chaudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.R. Paliwal, GC


              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

17/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar

circumstances and similar matters, the Division Bench of this

Court in The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,

Bikaner Vs. Narendra Kumar Boolchandani & Ors.; D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.362/2020 (decided on 04.02.2022),

while considering the aspect that the issue in question has arisen

in large number of cases and the Government has accepted the

stand and granted the benefits, disposed of the appeals with the

following directions:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the issue is arising in large number of cases and in several departments, the Government has accepted the stand and granted the benefits. If the petitioners are not granted similar benefits, it would amount to discriminatory treatment.

[2025:RJ-JD:18992] (2 of 2) [CW-7416/2025]

Whatever be the grievance of the petitioners they can be resolved at the level of the administration or by the Court through bipartite hearing. In view of the peculiar circumstances, these appeals are disposed of by permitting the Government to take into account the representations already made or to be filed by any of the petitioners within one month. In the process, the authorities will bear in mind the stand taken by the department in similar cases. Such representations would be decided in accordance with law unmindful of the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders. Eventually, if the grievances of the petitioner still survive after the Government decision, it is open for the petitioners to seeks redressal thereafter in accordance with law."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

writ petition of the petitioner may also be disposed of in light of

the above mentioned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the

above submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is

disposed of with the same directions as issued by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar

Boolchandani (supra).

5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioner before this

Court. The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of