Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shishir Kant Varshney vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:13273]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1832/2022
Shishir Kant Varshney S/o Late Shri Prakash Chandra Varshney,
Aged About 52 Years, R/o 340, Kanta Kuti, Opposite Naikiyo Ki
Bagechi, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. At Present
Executive Engineer, Municipal Council, Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary To The Government - Iii, Urban
Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Shri Om Prakash Dubey, Executive Engineer, Cad Colony,
Dadabari Kota, (Raj.).
4. Shri Suresh Kumar Beniwal, Executive Engineer Smart
City D-2, Swaimansingh Road, Jaipur, Nagar Nigam
Campus, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Jain
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Mr. Vivek Firoda
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/03/2025
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with a
grievance that inspite of the order dated 30.10.2014 (Annex.7)
which the respondents themselves had passed, the petitioner's
seniority is being reckoned from 29.03.2000 and not from
13.03.2000, when the petitioner had joined at place of posting i.e.
UIT, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner invited
Court's attention towards the order dated 30.10.2014, more
particularly para No.2 of the order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-
[2025:RJ-JD:13273] (2 of 3) [CW-1832/2022]
17) passed in petitioner's writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2376/2008 and pointed out that the Court has made a
categorical observation that the respondents have considered
petitioner's date of joining to be 13.03.2000 and raised a
grievance that still, for no reasons or rhyme, the respondents are
considering petitioner's date of joining to be 29.03.2000.
3. Learned counsel prayed that in wake of the above referred
facts, the respondents were supposed to reckon the petitioner's
seniority from such date i.e. 13.03.2000 - when he joined the
services in UIT, Sri Ganganagar, as has been held by the Jaipur
Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 19.09.2013, while
pointing out that such observation/finding has been recorded in
para No.7 of the order dated 23.09.2021.
4. Ms. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent - State
submitted that the respondents have considered the petitioner's
date of joining to be 29.03.2000 as per the service record. She
added that no illegality can be alleged in the action of the
respondents.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure-7), so also what
has been observed by this Court in para Nos.2 and 7 of the
judgment dated 23.09.2021, which has been passed in petitioner's
own case, the petition is allowed with cost.
6. While observing that the respondents' action is not only
arbitrary but also without application of mind, this Court hastens
to add that such an approach of the respondents compels the
citizens and employees to approach the High Court - the same not
[2025:RJ-JD:13273] (3 of 3) [CW-1832/2022]
only leads to harassment and agony of the citizens but also adds
to the otherwise heavy backlog of the cases in the High Court.
7. The respondents shall forthwith issue the rectified seniority
list and consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer in accordance with law.
8. The cost is however, quantified moderately - as Rs.5,000/-.
The same shall be paid by the State to the petitioner alongwith his
salary for the month of May, 2025.
9. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
37-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
