Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Sudan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:1972]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 308/2025
1. Madhu Sudan S/o Chunni Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Charabhuja Colony Charli, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore,
Rajasthan (Blis)
2. Anju Gupta W/o Rohti Kumar Gupta, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Khinya, District Bundi, Rajasthan (Blis)
3. Jaswanta Ram Parmar S/o Shri Himat Lal, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Vpo Elana, Tehsil And District Jalore, Rajasthan
(Clis)
4. Oba Ram S/o Vagata Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Vpo
Elana, District Jalore, Rajasathan (Clis)
5. Prahalad Singh Gurjar S/o Heera Lal Gurjar, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Vpo Reta, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Blis)
6. Mohammed Yunus S/o Zehir Mohammed Qureshi, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Near Masjid, Masuda, District Ajmer,
Rajasthan. (Clis)
7. Bhawani Singh Rathore S/o Kiran Singh Rathore, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Khrawa, Tehsil Masuda, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Clis)
8. Satya Narayan Megwansi S/o Nanu Ram Megwansi, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Patan, Tehsil Badnor, District
Beawar, Rajasthan. (Clis)
9. Suersh Kumar Bagri S/o Radheshyam Bagdi, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Vpo Patan, Tehsil Badnor, District Beawar,
Rajasthan. (Clis)
10. Devi Singh Rawat S/o Prabhu Singh Rawat, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Vpo Chatarpura, Tehsil Badnor, District
Beawar, Rajasthan. (Clis)
11. Deepak Soni S/o Chetan Prakash Soni, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Vpo Masuda, District Beawar, Rajasthan. (Clis)
12. Ganesh Lal Gurjar S/o Halu Ram Gurjar, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Village Narayan Pura, Post Patan, Block
Badnor, District Beawar, Rajasthan. (Clis)
13. Laxman Singh S/o Uday Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Kanota Ki Ber, Gram Post Tadgarh, Tehsil Masuda, District
Beawar, Rajasthan.
14. Raju Lal Bairwa S/o Modu Lal Bairwa, R/o Vpo
[2025:RJ-JD:1972] (2 of 4) [CW-308/2025]
Chatarganj, Regron Ka Bas, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi,
Rajasthan.
15. Ramdev Regar S/o Lakha Regar, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o Garm Post Khinya, District Bundi, Rajasthan (Blis)
16. Geeta Ram Sharma S/o Shyam Lal Sharma, Aged About
44 Years, R/o Village Madhabujurg, Post Marena, Tehsil
Mania, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)
17. Dharam Raj Sharma S/o Ram Lal Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 79 Veer Tejaji Road, Village Hatgi, Post
Rajpura, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan (Clis)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Elementary
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat , Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.).
4. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Jalore (Raj.).
5. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Beawar (Raj.).
6. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Ajmer (Raj.).
7. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Bundi (Raj.).
8. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Dausa (Raj.).
9. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Dholpur (Raj.).
10. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
Education, Tonk (Raj.).
----Respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:1972] (3 of 4) [CW-308/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bawla
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/01/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioners herein, arises out of the
inaction/non-consideration on the part of the respondents to
consider their claim of re-fixation of their monthly pay at the rate
of Rs.16,900/-.
2. They relied upon on a judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Jassa Ram Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
17901/2023) decided on 09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly
situated counterparts have been accorded benefit. They claim that
despite their passing the requisite qualification, they are not being
considered eligible for appointment as Vidhalaya Sahayak in the
higher pay bracket as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that
qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners also submitted
representation(s) before the competent authority for redressal
thereof, which has remained pending till date without being taken
up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the competent
authority be directed to decided the same by passing appropriate
administrative orders expeditiously.
4. Request seems to be fair.
5. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the
[2025:RJ-JD:1972] (4 of 4) [CW-308/2025]
requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is
required to be filed by them.
6. In view of the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed
of. The respondent competent authority is directed to decide the
pending representation(s) of the petitioners by passing an
appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.
7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.
8. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
14-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
