The petitioner sought a direction to consider his promotion representation in view of a coordinate bench order granting similar treatment to a co-accused. The proceedings were closed, directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation within two weeks and the respondents to decide within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14890 / 2017
Tarun Manohar Mathur, aged about 54 years, S/o Shri Shyam Manohar Mathur, Resident of 187, Shiva Apartments, Lajpat Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur presently posted as Assistant Engineer PWD, Sub Division Vidhanshabha-II, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
15/09/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chand Bohra v. State (Home Department) & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 17238/2015, decided on 16th May, 2017, after hearing the counsel for the State-respondents, observing thus:
“Undeniably, petitioner’s case was considered for promotion by the DPC, but the result has been kept in sealed cover as has been informed by the counsel for the State-respondents. The sealed cover has not been
(2 of 3)
[CW-14890/2017]
opened only owing to pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It is also not denied (6 of 6) [CW-17238/2015] that identically situated employee namely Shri Hanuman Ram Bishnoi, who is a co-accused along with the petitioner, in the same crime pending trial before the jurisdictional Court, has been accorded promotion. No reasons have been put forth for not according same treatment to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State-respondents neither in response to the writ application nor to the additional affidavit, detailed any reason as to why a differential treatment has been accorded in the matter of petitioner. Similarly placed persons, have been accorded benefit of promotion subject to outcome of criminal proceedings against them. There is no reason why the petitioner cannot be allowed similar treatment.
For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and proceeded accordingly.
In case, the petitioner has been recommended for promotion, he would be accorded all consequential benefits on notional basis, subject to outcome of criminal proceedings pending against him.
No costs.”
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Kailash Chand Bohra (supra), which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
(3 of 3)
[CW-14890/2017]
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the State-respondents.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who is identically situated with a co-accused who received a promotion, should be accorded the same treatment for promotion reconsideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash Chand Bohra v. State of RajasthanReferred¶14
Kailash Chand Bohra v. State (Home Department) & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 17238/2015
Tarun Manohar Mathur
State of Rajasthan
Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan
Chief Engineer – cum – Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
