Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanker Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28818) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28818]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12238/2025
Shanker Lal S/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of
Village Kelan Kalauni Bholewala, Po Surewali, Via Goluwala,
Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Rules) Department Of Finance,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North), Hanumangarh
Junction.
5. Executive Engineer, Water Resource, Division
Hanumangarh II, Hanumangarh.
6. Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Sub-Division Khara,
District Hanumangarh Jn.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
04/07/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13130/2016 'Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 05.12.2022, therefore, Mr. Milap
[2025:RJ-JD:28818] (2 of 3) [CW-12238/2025]
Chopra, learned counsel, present in the Court, is directed to
accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Mr. Bijarnia, 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 appointed by the same authorities, in the
same manner, wherein the eligibility criteria was also
the 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
[2025:RJ-JD:28818] (3 of 3) [CW-12238/2025]
passed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the present order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of."
4. Mr. Milap Chopra, learned Additional Government Counsel for
the respondent - State submitted that principle issue seems to be
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.
5. 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
11-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
