Disposed

Hadmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 May 2018CW/7094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition, finding the issue not res integra as covered by the precedent Malu Ram. The Court directed grantees to consider the petitioner's case on terms laid down in that judgment without repeating specific directions applicable to other petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for appointment on terms laid down in Malu Ram (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4374/2018).

Hadmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7094 / 2018

Hadmat Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hadmat Singh (Petitioner present in person)

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

25/05/2018

¶12

The lawyers are not working due to absentation from work.

¶13

On perusal of facts, this Court finds that the issue raised in the present petition is no more res-integra and is covered by the decision of this Court in Malu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4374/2018 and other connected writ petitions decided on 10.05.2018. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

¶14

"26. In light of aforementioned submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that already there is an existing directions to the respondents to lay down a common criteria for selection on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak to be made afresh, which is there in the judgment of Pawan Kumar (supra), and the respondents are under a legal obligation to work out a criteria, which shall, after giving appropriate weightage to the experience and merit as well as other eligibility conditions for the contractual post of Gram Panchayat

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

Sahayak, shall be followed for the next round of recruitment. The sufficient directions are already existing in the judgment of Pawan Kumar (supra) regarding the same. 27. The limited issue of adjudication before this Court in the present dispute is that the petitioners are seeking redressal of consideration of their points regarding their experience, merit and other issues by the respondents for considering them to be appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks in their respective claimed Gram Panchayats, before the fresh rights are created by the new recruitment process or by extension / renewal of the existing contract. It is further made clear that this adjudication is only qua the petitioners who have approached this Court and shall operate only in respect of those Gram Panchayats where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners.

¶17

28. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions :-

¶18

(i) The respondents shall constitute a Committee comprising of CEO Zila Parishad concerned, DEO Elementary Education concerned, DEO Secondary Education concerned and BEEO concerned. The petitioners shall give fresh representations to such Committee constituted by the Zila Parishad. The Committee shall be required to operate with a quorum of at least two members of the aforesaid four members Committee, which have been suggested by the Additional Advocate General himself in the presence of the DEO Legal Elementary, Jodhpur.

¶19

(ii) The Committee shall make the necessary consideration of each dispute and pass specific orders with reasons to accept or deny the causes taken up by the petitioners in their representations. (iii) If the grievances of the petitioners is affecting any third party then the Committee shall be required to give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the third party as well, before coming to the conclusion regarding the dispute in question.

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

(iv) The respondents shall not conduct any fresh selection process for the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in the Gram Panchayats where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, until a proper speaking order is passed upon the representation by the Committee.

¶22

(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to continue the contract of the existing Gram Panchayat Sahayaks strictly in accordance with law and as per the policy decision of the State Government, but on completion of the first term for the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, the extension / renewal of the contract shall not be granted until final orders upon the representations of the petitioners are passed.

¶23

(vi) The respondents, therefore, shall be required to hear all the parties concerned and affected, through their Committee a quorum of which has already been laid down by this Court with the assistance of the learned Additional Advocate General, and until the conclusion in the shape of speaking order is made by the Committee concerned, any further selection process in the Gram Panchayats regarding the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak concerned where the dispute has been raised by the petitioners, in particular, shall not be made.

¶24

(vii) This order shall not operate qua any person, who is not the petitioner before this Court, and for the Gram Panchayats where the disputes are already being resolved, as per the earlier judgments, the authority shall be free to take appropriate legal recourse.

¶25

(viii) The respondents shall be required to complete this exercise as expeditiously as possible within the outer of limit of two months.

¶26

29. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of."

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

This Court finds that the redressal of grievance of the petitoner can be made as per the aforementioned precedent law, therefore, in light of aforementioned precedent law, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the responents to consider the case of petitoner on the same terms.

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Sanjay

Hadmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadmat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Chander Nai Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Ram Vallabh Vs Bharat Singh and Ors.

Abdul Rasheed and Ors. Vs Lrs of Smt. Ataiya Begum and Ors.

Monika Baghela Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dalpat Dan Charan Vs the University Grants Commission and Ors.

Akashdeep Morya Vs State and Ors.