Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:33986]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14315/2025
Hari Singh S/o Shri Panne Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Gurudwara Wali Gali, Fatehdeenwala Sureshiya, Ward No. 53,
Hanumangarh Junction 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-I,
Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Sub Division
Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
6. The Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra, Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
01/08/2025
1. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the issue involved in the present writ petition 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
[2025:RJ-JD:33986] (2 of 2) [CW-14315/2025]
appointed by the same authorities, in the same manner,
wherein the eligibility criteria was alsothe 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 be
held 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 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 do not dispute and have no objection if
present writ petition is 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 petition is, therefore, allowed in light of the
Harphool Singh (supra) while giving liberty to the respondents to
take a decision after examining the record.
(SUNIL BENIWAL), J
7-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
