Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesh Narayan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28192) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28192]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15891/2021
1. Ganesh Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Gulab Chand Sharma,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sultan Nagar, Bjs Colony,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan..
2. Jetha Ram S/o Shri Jassa Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Loonawas Jatan, Lunawas, Kallan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Mo. Shakir S/o Shri Abdul Sakir, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Metha Ji Ki Pol, Tripoliya Gali, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Om Prakash Bishnoi S/o Shri Mana Ram, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Hansa Desh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Vijay Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Kalka Mata Mandir, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Law And
Legal Affairs Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director State Litigation Law And Legal Affairs
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Government Advocate Cum Additional Advocate General,
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal.
Ms Muskan Jangid.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhanshali, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rohin Bhanshali.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
01/07/2025
Heard.
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by
judgment dated 05.12.2024 rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7990/2022 (State of
[2025:RJ-JD:28192] (2 of 2) [CW-15891/2021]
Rajasthan v/s Hari Mohan Meena & Ors.) along with other
connected matters in the following terms:-
"9. We have heard counsel for the parties at length.
From the facts, it is discernible to us that the institution
of the Advocate General along with other legal officers
in the State of Rajasthan is functioning by engaging ad
hoc staff, or by engaging the persons on contract basis
by the Law Officers. However, they were being paid a
meagre amount at the mercy of those Law Officers,
who engaged them. It cannot be lost sight of that the
Government is a major litigant in the State and those
cases of importance are being contested by such
government advocates. In such a situation granting
liberty to engage the class III and IV staff at the sweet
will of the Law officers and to pay them salary as they
wish cannot be said to be a right approach for better
administration of justice and to maintain the
confidentiality and integrity of the justice delivery
system.
10. In our view, the State Government through
Advocate General should engage the staff by
centralised selection process after framing a policy in
this regard within certain time frame and it should be
strictly followed. The staff so engaged ought to be paid
minimum of pay scales at least. For the present, the
directions as issued by the learned Single Judge as
upheld by the Division Bench to pay the minimum of
the pay scale to the staff who are working with the
Advocate General, Additional Advocate Generals and
other law officers are just and fair, hence, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.
11. In view of the foregoing observations, we dismiss
these Special Leave Petitions. Pending application (s), if
any, shall stand disposed of."
In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan v/s Hari Mohan Meena (supra), the
present petition is allowed and the benefits extended in the case
of Hari Mohan Meena & Ors. may be extended to the petitioners.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
203-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
