Hindu Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9347 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9347 Raj
Judgement Date : 26 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hindu Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 March, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:15819]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6482/2025

1. Hindu Singh S/o Khel Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Likdi, Post Balasar, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan (Clis).

2. Nand Lal Nagar S/o Madan Lal Nagar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vpo Dilod, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

3. Sadam Husain S/o Khairadeen Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Matuja, Post Hathisingh Ka Gav, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan (Clis).

4. Hate Singh Yadav S/o Shadhu Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Khirkhiree Sanwara, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

5. Kishor S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bhoyal, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

6. Vijay Singh Mehta S/o Pritam Chandra, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Beel Khera Dang, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

7. Ramji Lal S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 71, Jatav Basti, Teshil Shahbad, Gordhanpur, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

8. Shri Ram Chamar S/o Shampula Lal Chamar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Sejanpur, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

9. Pavan Kumar Kushwah S/o Kanhaiya Lal Kushwah, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Sahajnpur, Tehsil Chhipabroad, District Baran, Rajasthan (Clis).

10. Jitendra Kushwah S/o Dayakrishan Kushwah, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ratan Pura Road, Ward No. 23, Chhipabard, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

11. Rampal Potter S/o Mangala Kumhar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Vpo Ramayal, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

12. Hari Kishan S/o Ganga Ram Lodha, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo Shahadatpura, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan (Blis).

13. Kamlesh Kumar Malav S/o Chhitar Lal Malav, Aged About

[2025:RJ-JD:15819] (2 of 4) [CW-6482/2025]

40 Years, R/o Village Kundi, Post Mundkya, District Baran, Rajasthan (Clis).

14. Rajendra Kumavat S/o Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Kundi, Post Mundkya, District Baran, Rajasthan (Clis).

15. Shrikrishan Lavvanshi S/o Gangaram Lavvanshi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Vpo Bhawpura, District Baran, Rajasthan (Bped).

16. Gyarsiram S/o Gopal Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Seven Kheri, Post Teetar Kheri, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan (Clis).

17. Ashok Kumar Gurjar S/o Ganga Sahai Gurjar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Nangal Govind, Post Hingotiya, Tehsil Lawan, District Dausa, Rajasthan (Clis).

18. Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Ganga Sahai Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Beed Lawan, Post Lawan, District Dausa, Rajasthan (Clis).

19. Surendra Kumar Goswami S/o Takhtraj, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Arniya, Khariya, District Kota, Rajasthan (Clis).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Barmer (Raj.).

5. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Baran (Raj.).

6. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Dausa (Raj.).

7. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Kota (Raj.).

----Respondents

[2025:RJ-JD:15819] (3 of 4) [CW-6482/2025]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Singh Chauhan

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/03/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1590/2024 (Praveen

Kumar Paliwal vs State of Rajasthan) has been disposed of by

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024.

2. Learned counsel prayed that similar order be passed in

petitioners' case also.

3. In case of Praveen Kumar Paliwal (supra), a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has observed as under :-

1. Grievance of the petitioners herein, arises out of the inaction/non-consideration on the part of the respondents to consider their claim of re-fixation of their monthly pay at the rate of Rs.16,900/- as against Rs.10,400/- which is being currently paid, notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan vide a letter dated 24.04.2023 recommended their case favourably to Deputy Secretary(Admn.), Department of Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan.

2. They also rely a judgment rendered by this Court in case of Jassa Ram Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17901/2023) decided on 09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly situated counter parts have been accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing the requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., D.L.I.S and C.L.I.S., they are not being considered eligible for appointment as physical education teachers in the Elementary Education Department in the higher pay bracket as aforesaid.

[2025:RJ-JD:15819] (4 of 4) [CW-6482/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner also submitted representation (Annexure-7) before the competent authority for redressal thereof, which has remained pending till date without being taken up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the competent authority be directed to decided the same by passing appropriate administrative orders expeditiously.

4. Request seems to be fair.

5. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be filed by them.

6. In the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent competent authority is directed to decide the pending representations of the petitioner (Annexure-7) by passing an appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

4. The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

5. The competent authority is directed to deal with petitioners'

representation (annexure-7) by passing appropriate order in

accordance with law.

6. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 70-Mak/-