Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47965) on 6 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47965]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17723/2025
Babu Lal S/o Pachan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Chandesra, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Finance (Budget), Department Of Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
Balotara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
06/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical
petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1042/2024 (Ranjeet
Singh Rathore vs State of Rajasthan) has been disposed of by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2024.
2. Learned counsel prayed that similar order be passed in
petitioners' case also.
3. In case of Ranjeet Singh Rathore (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-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 12:12:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47965] (2 of 3) [CW-17723/2025]
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
dated23.05.2023 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
C.P.Ed., D.P.Ed., B.P.Ed. and BPE, DPE, they are
not being considered eligible for appointment as
physical education teachers in the Elementary
Education Department in the higher pay bracket
as aforesaid.
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.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 12:12:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47965] (3 of 3) [CW-17723/2025]
4. The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Consequently, the competent authority is directed to deal with
petitioners' representation (annexure-7) by passing appropriate
order in accordance with law.
5. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
364-divya/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 12:12:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
