Disposed

Raj Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2023CW/2135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pursuing judgment in Hitesh Kumar, Rajasthan High Court directed State Departments to decide representations filed by petitioners regarding regularization of services as Computer Operators under Rajasthan Contractual Hiring Rules, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide representation of petitioners regarding service regularization under Rules of 2022 in accordance with law.

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42548]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2135/2023

¶4

Raj Kumar S/o Narayan Das, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Rawla District Sriganganagar.

¶5

Keshav Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ridmalsar District Sriganganagar.

¶6

Attar Chand S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Padampur District Sriganganagar.

¶7

Harnek Singh S/o Bhajjan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/ o Srivijaynagar District Sriganganagar.

¶8

Pradeep Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Rawla District Sriganganagar.

¶9

Seema Sharma W/o Arvind Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sardarshar District Churu.

¶10

Bharat Sharma S/o Purshotam Das, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jaitsar District Sriganganagar.

¶11

Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Sitaram Gupta, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Srikaranpur District Sriganganagar.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Gr.2), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶16

The Director, Agriculture Marketing, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶17

Regional Joint Director, Agriculture Marketing Division, Sikar.

¶18

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Rawla District Sriganganagar.

¶19

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Padampur District Sriganganagar.

¶20

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ridmalsar District Sriganganagar.

¶21

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khajuwal District Bikaner.

¶22

(2 of 4) [CW-2135/2023]

¶23

[2023:RJ-JD:42548]

¶24

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kesrisinghpur District Sriganganagar.

¶25

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar District Sriganganagar.

¶26

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Churu District Churu. 12. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana District Sriganganagar.

¶27

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaitsar District Sriganganagar.

¶28

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shrivijay Nagar District Sriganganagar.

¶29

Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sarsarshar District Churu.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh for MR. SK
	Verma
For Respondent(s)	:

¶32

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶33

Order

¶34

07/12/2023

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶36

The present writ petition has been filed with following

¶37

prayers:-

¶38

"I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Computer Operator (Machine with man) after screening and consequently, give all the benefits of the services from the date of their respective initial date of appointment in view of the provisions of Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022.

¶39

II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to treated the petitioners at par to the other employees who have been extended the benefits under the Rules of 2022.

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42548]

[CW-2135/2023]

III. In alternate respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners as early as possible."

¶44

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ

¶45

Petition No.483/2023 (Hitesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matters, decided on 19.07.2023 in the following terms:-

¶46

"8. Having regard to the rival stands, instead of deciding petitioners’ entitlement at this stage, as the same would require factual determination of various aspects, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to each of the petitioners to file his/her representation before the CMHO of his/her District, where they are/were engaged.

¶47

It will be required of the petitioners to file a copy of the advertisement, appointment letter by the CMHO or any other competent Government official and/or a copy of the contract.

¶48

The representation aforesaid be filed on or before 10.08.2023.

¶49

The concerned CMHO shall consider candidature of each of the petitioners separately in terms of the Rules of 2022, particularly Rule 3 of the Rules of 2022. He shall clearly indicate as to whether appointment of the petitioner was under scheme or project of the State Government and he/she was engaged through public advertisement. The CMHO shall decide the representation of the petitioners on or before 15.09.2023.

¶50

The concerned CMHO shall forward the list of all the candidates, who fulfill the conditions of the Rules of 2022, to the Director Medical Health.

¶51

The Director Medical & Health shall consolidate list so sent by all the CMHOs and recommend the names to the Finance Department for doing the needful in accordance with law.

¶52

Once, such list is received from the Director Medical & Health, the needful in accordance with law will be done by the Finance Department within a period of four weeks.

¶53

It is hereby made clear that this Court has not pronounced upon the eligibility or entitlement of any of the

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:42548]

[CW-2135/2023]

candidates under the Rules of 2022. In case any candidate has been engaged through placement agency, the concerned CMHO shall seek guidance from the State Government (Finance Department) and decide his/her case individually.

¶58

If final decision of the CMHO concerned or State Government is prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner(s), he/she/they will be free to take legal remedies in accordance with law.

¶59

Stay petitions also stand disposed of."

¶60

4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents may be permitted to file a representation to the respondents afresh for redressal of the grievances in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Hitesh Kumar (supra).

¶61

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law, considering the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Hitesh Kumar (supra), if the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing.

¶62

The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, 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, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶63

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶64

1-Sudheer/-

Raj Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Jhabbar Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Lal Bagrecha Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh

Meenakshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Lal Vs Raj.Civil Ser. Appl. Tri. , Jaipur and Ors.

Brahmin Swankar Trust Ganesh Mandir Vs Rk Jayaswal and Anr.