Ramchandra Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29197)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1913 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramchandra Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29197) on 7 July, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:29197]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6517/2025

1.       Ramchandra Prajapat S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 58
         Years, Resident Of Ward No.50, House No. Rcst-01,
         Hanumangarh Junction.
2.       Laxman Singh S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About
         57 Years, Resident Of Ward No.50, House No.rcst-10,
         Hanumangarh Junction.
3.       Tarsem Singh S/o Late Shri Jogindra Singh, Aged About
         49 Years, Resident Of Ward No.50, House No.rcst-10,
         Hanumangarh Junction.
4.       Hakam Ali S/o Late Shri Noor Mohamad, Aged About 72
         Years, Resident Of Ward No.13, Village Rodawali, Tehsil
         And District Hanumangarh Junction.
5.       Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Gyan Chand, Aged About 62
         Years, Resident Of Ward No.6, Village Lilawali, Tehsil
         Sangariya, District Hanumangarh Junction.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                         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.       Superintending            Engineer,         Water        Resources         Circle,
         Hanumangarh Junction.
6.       Executive        Engineer,       Water       Resources,         Division    First,
         Hanumangarh.
7.       Assistant        Engineer,       Water       Resources,         Sub-      Division
         Hanumangarh Junction.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Milap Chopra, AGC


                          (Downloaded on 08/07/2025 at 09:42:12 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:29197]                      (2 of 3)                          [CW-6517/2025]


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/07/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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

Chopra, learned counsel, present in the Court, is directed to

accept notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Mr. Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioners 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

[2025:RJ-JD:29197] (3 of 3) [CW-6517/2025]

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 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 123-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)