Narendra Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4510 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4510 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:2274]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 436/2025

1. Narendra Singh S/o Heer Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/ o Village Jodhani Tepu, Post Tepu, Tehsil Bap, District Phalodi, Rajasthan (Clis).

2. Hanumant Siyag S/o Sawai Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Ridhusar, Khimpsar, Tehsil Baytoo, District Barmer , Rajasthan (Clis).

3. Yogendra Singh S/o Jasawant Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Village Sadapur, Post Basai Gheeyaram, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

4. Rajbeer S/o Gyaprasad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Singhwali Khurd, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur , Rajasthan (Clis)

5. Harendra Singh S/o Kanchan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vpo Bajana, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

6. Jitendra Singh S/o Kunwar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo, Devkhera, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

7. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Andhiyari, Post Gadhi Jafar, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

8. Sonoo Kumari D/o Brajendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Rohai Mohalla, Rajakhera, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

9. Babli D/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Devkhera, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan (Clis)

10. Revendra Kumar Sabita S/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 12 Doctor Colony,rajakhera, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, 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

[2025:RJ-JD:2274] (2 of 4) [CW-436/2025]

Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)

4. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Phalodi (Raj.).

5. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Barmer (Raj.).

6. The District Edcuation Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Dholpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/01/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2024

(Praveen Kumar Paliwal vs State of Rajasthan) has been

disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

02.02.2024.

2. Learned counsel prayed that similar order be passed in

petitioners' case also.

3. In case of Praveen Kumar Paliwal (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has observed as under :-

"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/- as against Rs.10,400/- which is being currently paid, notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan vide a letter dated

[2025:RJ-JD:2274] (3 of 4) [CW-436/2025]

24.04.2023 recommended their case favourably to Deputy Secretary(Admn.), Department of Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan.

2. They also rely a judgment rendered by this Court in 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 counter parts have been accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing the requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., D.L.I.S and C.L.I.S., they are not being considered eligible for appointment as physical education teachers in the Elementary Education Department in the higher pay bracket as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner also submitted representation (Annexure-7) 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 requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be filed by them.

6. In the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent competent authority is directed to decide the pending representations of the petitioner (Annexure-7) by passing an appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.