Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakhveer Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:20002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8184/2025
Lakhveer Singh S/o Jagraj Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ward No. 11, Bhaika Mohalla, 14 Mks, Shergarh, Manaksar, Teh.
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Presently Working As Computer
Operator (Ldc) At Municipal Board, Pilibangan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Municipal Board, Pilibangan District Hanumangarh
Through Its Executive Officer.
3. The Director, Department Of Local Self, Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. The Dy. Director, Regional Department Of Local Self,
Bikaner Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya Dadhich
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
24/04/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1952/2019; Jitendra Kumar Tailor Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 06.07.2020). He submits that the
petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to
decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid
judgment.
[2025:RJ-JD:20002] (2 of 3) [CW-8184/2025]
2. In Jitendra Kumar's case (supra), it was observed and held
as under:
"Petitioner was initially engaged by the Municipal
Board, Nawa, as Computer Operator, vide order dated
12th of April, 2007. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ
petition that since inception of his service career,
petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost
satisfaction and he has to his credit requisite
qualification of Computer Operator. It is also reflected
from the pleadings that State Govt. in exercise of
power under Section 328 of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Rules, 2009, has sanctioned number of
posts for various municipalities and one post of
Computer Operator is also sanctioned for respondent
No.4,Municipal Board, Nawa. The decision of the State
Govt. in this behalf was conveyed by the Dy. Director,
Local Self Govt. vide order dated 30.09.2013. The
petition also unfurls that considering the longevity of
the services of petitioner and his satisfactory
performance as Computer Operator prompted the
Municipal Board to recommend for regularization of his
services on the post of Computer Operator.
Accordingly, recommendation in this behalf was sent by
the Municipal Board to the State Government but same
is still pending before the State Govt. The petitioner
has also placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court
in State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
While referring to office order dated 15th of March,
2017 (Annex.6), it is also pleaded that the Local Self
Govt. has issued necessary directions for implementing
the verdict given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.18056/2015 (Roshan Lal Saini V/s. State & Ors.,
decided on 9th of March, 2017) for regularization of the
services of employees in consonance with the policy
adopted by the State Govt.
Learned counsel appearing for the State Govt.
has not disputed that recommendations have been
sent by Municipal Board but has submitted that the
matter is still pending consideration before the
Directorate.
In this view of the matter, I deem it just and
appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the State Govt. to decide the matter at the
earliest to facilitate issuance of requisite order of
regularization of petitioner's services, strictly in
[2025:RJ-JD:20002] (3 of 3) [CW-8184/2025]
accordance with law. The requisite exercise be
undertaken by the State Govt. at the earliest,
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date
presentation of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
The stay application also stands disposed of
accordingly."
3. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation of the
petitioner if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter
in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made
in the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra).
4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance.
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
the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the
averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate
orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
206-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
