A Division Bench disposed of a Special Appeal Writ challenging an order granting benefits to similarly situated petitioners, permitting the Government to consider representations regarding the matter.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1088/2022
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr Utkarsh |
Gujar for Mr. Sunil |
|---|---|---|
| Beniwal, AAG | ||
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. S.S. Chou |
dhary |
[SAW-1088/2022]
(2 of 3)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
19/07/2023
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay of 945 days in filing the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench vide order dated 21.11.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017 (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has granted reliefs to the similarly situated petitioners in the light of judgment passed in Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.3247/2015, decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) (WLC) (Raj.) 381.
It is further submitted that the Special Appeal Writ challenging the order passed in Om Prakash Sharma’s case (supra) has already been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court.
Learned AAG is not in a position to dispute the above facts.
It is noticed that the Special Appeal Writ preferred against the order passed in Om Prakash Sharma’s case (supra) has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court while passing the following order:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the issue is arising in large number of cases and in several departments, the Government has accepted the stand and granted the benefits. If the petitioners are not granted similar benefits, it would
(3 of 3)
[SAW-1088/2022]
amount to discriminatory treatment. Whatever be the grievance of the petitioners they can be resolved at the level of the administration or by the Court through bipartite hearing.
In view of the peculiar circumstances, these appeals are disposed of by permitting the Government to take into account the representations already made or to be filed by any of the petitioners within one month. In the process, the authorities will bear in mind the stand taken by the department in similar cases. Such representations would be decided in accordance with law unmindful of the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders. Eventually, if the grievances of the petitioners still survive after the Government decision, it is open for the petitioners to seek redressal thereafter in accordance with law.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.”
In view of the above, this Special Appeal Writ is also disposed of on the same terms as quoted above.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
59-Hanuman/-
State Of Rajasthan
Pushpendra Pareek
Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
