This order disposes of a writ petition regarding employment benefits. The High Court granted relief similar to a previous decision involving Suman Jhanwar, directing the authorities to process the petitioner's representation and provide a hearing.
Petition disposed of with liberty to file representation; direction to grant similar relief to petitioner.
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 AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17337/2019
Rajni Chugh D/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Near Boolchand Nagpal School, Anupgarh, District - Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
22/11/2019
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of petitioners in Suman
Jhanwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5405/2012) , decided on 12.02.2015, whereby this Court directed the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the appointing authority and on filing of such representation, the petitioners therein have been granted the requisite relief by the respondents and, therefore, the present petitioners may also be granted similar relief as granted in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra).
(2 of 2) [CW-17337/2019]
In the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra), this Court after hearing the parties, passed the following order :-
“Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority, who has issued the orders of appointment to the petitioners claiming the same relief, as purportedly given to other similar situated persons. It is expected of the respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to them though others persons have been given such benefits. If, however, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law.”
In view of the submissions as noticed hereinbefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra). Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
107-Ravi Kh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to similar relief of employment benefits as granted to similarly situated petitioners in the cited case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶15
Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5405/2012)
Rajni Chugh D/o Shri Shankar Lal
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner
The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Hanumangarh
Additional Chief Executive Officer (Elementary Education), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
