Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2849) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:2849]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1050/2025
1. Rajendra Singh S/o Chandgi Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Gorir, Post Gorir, Tehsil Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu, At
Present Posting Mpgss Diwer, Block Bhim, Dist.
Rajsamand.
2. Bheru Lal S/o Naval Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Village And Post Baghana, Tehsil Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand,
Raj. At Present Posting Mpgsss Diwer, Block Bhim, Dist.
Rajsamand.
3. Narayan Singh Chouhan S/o Bhoor Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Khedi Kheema Rajsamand Raj. At
Present Posting Mpgsss Diwer, Block Bhim, Dist.
Rajsamand.
4. Laxman Ram S/o Khangar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/
o Vpo Phulad, Via Ranawas, Tehsil Marwar Junction, Dist.
Pali Raj. At Present Posting Pbbln Ggsss Diwer, Block
Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand.
5. Sarita W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Bhutiyabas, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu, At
Present Gups Kherajassa, Block Bhim, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education)
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, (Secondary Education)
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : -
[2025:RJ-JD:2849] (2 of 3) [CW-1050/2025]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the
identical situation this court vide order dated 25.04.2023 has
disposed of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6580/2020 (Jugal
Kishore & Ors. V/s State & Ors.) in the following terms:-
"1. While inviting court's attention to the prayer in
the writ petition, vis-a-vis, the order dated
28.05.2021 passed by the State Government, Mr.
Chanda learned counsel for the respondent-State
submits that the relief claimed in the writ petitions
has already been granted to the petitioners and the
writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
2. In view of the submissions notices above and
considering the order dated 28.05.2021, the writ
petition is dismissed as having been rendered
infructuous.
3. Since, it is admitted case of the State that
petitioners' grievance has been redressed, it will be
incumbent upon the competent authority to pass an
order in terms of the order dated 28.05.2021.
4. In view of the fact that the State Government had
taken an in- principle decision to redress petitioners'
grievance way back on 28.05.2021, the competent
authority of the respondent- State is hereby directed
to pass an appropriate order revising petitioners' pay
scale in terms of the order dated 28.05.2021 and
determine the salary payable as early as possible
preferably within three months from today.
5. After re-fixation of petitioner's pay scale, the
respondents shall pay the arrears to the petitioners
latest by 31.12.2023.
[2025:RJ-JD:2849] (3 of 3) [CW-1050/2025]
6. The stay application also stands disposed of
accordingly".
3. In view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners may be permitted to submit a detailed
representation to the respondents and prays that the respondents
may be directed to consider the same in the light of judgment
rendered by this court in the case of Jugal Kishore & Ors (supra).
4. Considering the limited prayer made by the counsel for the
petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms that in
the event of filing a representation by the petitioners, the same
shall be considered and decided by the respondents in the light of
judgment rendered by this court in case of Jugal Kishore (supra)
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
5. The present order has been passed on the submission made
by the counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is
similar to the case of Jugal Kishore, therefore, if the facts of the
present case are not similar to the case of Jugal Kishore, 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, the petitioners would be
entitled to the relief.
6. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
309-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
