Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balwant Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:23482]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6066/2025
Balwant Singh S/o Shri Chhota Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Ward No. 1, Bhakharawali, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North),
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-I,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Water Resources,
Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek for
Mr. J.S.Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Milap Chopra, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/05/2025
1. Mr. Pareek, 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:-
[2025:RJ-JD:23482] (2 of 3) [CW-6066/2025]
"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
passed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the present order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of."
2. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23482] (3 of 3) [CW-6066/2025]
3. 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
41-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
