Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Girdhari Ram And Ors vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:22585) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:22585] (1 of 3) [CW-3787/2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3787/2015
1. Girdhari Ram S/o Narayan Ram age 50 years
2. Kailash S/o Sesharam Age 50 years
3. Dhanna Ram S/o Malla Ram age 48 years
4. Smt. Jhamku Devi W/o Mangilal Ram age 52 years
5. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Malla Ram age 52 years
All are r/o village Samdari Tehsil Samdari District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of
Panchayatraj, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
3. Gram Panchayat, Samdari through its Sarpanch, Village
Samdari tehsil Samdari Dist. Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Vyas
Mr. Sukhdev
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/05/2025
1. The case of the petitioners is that although they were
initially appointed in the year 1990 with the Municipal Board,
however subsequently after dissolution of the concerned
Municipal Board, they were sent to the Gram Panchayat in the
year 1991. Since then, they are working with the Gram
Panchayat as daily wagers.
2. In view of their continuous service since the year 1991,
there services deserve to be regularized.
3. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B.
[2025:RJ-JD:22585] (2 of 3) [CW-3787/2015]
Civil Writ Petition No.7603/2023 (decided on 29.04.2025)
wherein the Court issued specific directions governing the
regularization of the services of the Government employees.
4. Learned counsel submits that the respondents be directed
to decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance
with the directions as issued in Girirja Prasad Sharma's case
(supra).
5. The request as made by learned counsel for the petitioner
seems to be genuine.
6. In Giriraj Prasad Sharma's case (supra), the Court while
issuing several other directions observed and directed as under:
"26. In view of the foregoing discussion, binding
precedents of the Supreme Court, and the settled legal
principles and also to undo long-standing administrative
injustice by exercising writ jurisdiction, following specific
directions are deemed necessary, to be implemented in
rem:-
I. Regularization of Eligible Petitioners
(i) The State Government, through its Chief Secretary,
shall carry a fresh exercise (regardless of rejection of
earlier claims of regularization) to identify all petitioners
and all such other employees (excluding those whose
services were hired purely on a contractual basis for
time-bound projects/schemes or through placement
agencies), whose initial appointments were irregular but
not illegal, and who had complete ten years of continuous
service on or before 08.07.2009, without judicial
intervention, and issue orders regularizing their services
with effect from their respective dates of completing ten
years' service.
(ii) Such regularization shall carry with it all
consequential service benefits, including continuity of
service for pensionary and promotional purposes, and
shall be completed within six months from the date of
receipt of the web-print of this judgment."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the
above submission and agrees that if the petitioner would file a
representation, the same would be decided in accordance with
[2025:RJ-JD:22585] (3 of 3) [CW-3787/2015]
the ratio laid down in Giriraj Prasad's case (supra).
8. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the competent
authority/respondents to decide the representation(s) of the
petitioners if filed within a period of fifteen days from now. The
representation(s) be decided within a period of six weeks
thereafter in accordance with law and keeping in view the
observations made in the case of Giriraj Prasad (supra).
9. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation(s) has been issued only with a view to ensure
expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance.
10. The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition and by learned counsel for the petitioners before
this Court. The respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in
case, the averments made therein are found to be correct,
appropriate orders would be passed in favour of the petitioners.
11. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
69-devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
