Disposed

Manik Badhwar S/O Kamal Singh Badhwar v. Joint Secretary Iii, Udh

Rajasthan HC13 May 2024CW/2364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, relying on Pawan Meena, directs respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate speaking orders after hearing within 30 days, emphasizing the State's duty to address grievances and reduce litigation.

What did the court decide?

Direct Respondents to consider Petitioner's representation, give him an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate speaking orders within 30 days.

Manik Badhwar S/O Kamal Singh Badhwar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22541]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2364/2024

¶4

Manik Badhwar S/o Kamal Singh Badhwar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No. 6, Badhwar Bhawan, Nanta Road, Vikas Nagar, Kunhadi, Shambhoopura, Kota, Rajasthan- 324008.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Joint Secretary III, Udh, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Commissioner, Jda, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Commissioner, Uit, Ajmer.

¶10

Commissioner, Uit, Kota.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prerit Goyal For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶14

Order

¶15

13/05/2024

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice/representation/application dated 30.05.2022 (Annex.6) sent by the petitioner to the respondents was not considered.

¶17

In a recent order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Pawan

¶18

Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1665/2024; Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:5792) , considering that the representation filed by the litigants were not being addressed by the State and its instrumentalities, this Court observed as under:

¶19

“Considering the arguments advanced above, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the State, by constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State, whilst

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:22541]

[CW-2364/2024]

exercising governance over it’s citizens, is expected to protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic wellbeing, based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life.

¶24

With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise.

¶25

At the same time, it is noted that the writ court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, employs a discretionary approach, where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy, the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority, better equipped with experts or otherwise, to entertain the dispute. Resultantly, in service matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself, being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court.

¶26

Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely.

¶27

Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them.

¶28

It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:22541]

[CW-2364/2024]

with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs.

¶33

In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly overburdened courts.”

¶34

This is yet another case which shows the conditions prevailing in this State. Even to consider the representation, ordinary people are forced to approach this Court for getting directions.

¶35

In view of the decision of this Court in Pawan Meena (supra) , without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or his counsel.

¶36

It is expected that the respondents would pass speaking order upon the said representation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days.

¶37

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶38

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶39

DEEPAK/103

Manik Badhwar S/O Kamal Singh Badhwar v. Joint Secretary Iii, Udh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Badhwar S/O Kamal Singh Badhwar v. Joint Secretary Iii, Udh

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

Rohit Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sambhu Dayal Kumhar Andanr Vs R P S C Andanr

Choti Devi Vs the Executive Officer Jaipur Andors

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manoj Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chet Ram Suman Vs State of Rajasthanandors