Disposed

Raj Kumar Singh S/O Late Shri Rajpal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 May 2024CW/8942/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned 26 petitioners seeking directions from the State authorities to consider their representations. The High Court followed earlier precedent, directing the respondents to hear the petitioners and pass speaking orders on their grievances within 30 days to provide an expeditious remedy.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate speaking orders within 30 days after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Raj Kumar Singh S/O Late Shri Rajpal Singh Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8942/2024

¶4

Raj Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Rajpal Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 33, Prem Nagar-I, Gurjar Ki Thari, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

¶5

Kamal Kishore Sharma S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o P.no. 101, Bhomiya Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

Karni Singh S/o Shri Giriraj Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No. 24, Roop Nagar, Kalwar Road, Govindpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Shri Hari Narayan Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 2613, Brahmano Ki Dhani, Badharana, Harmada, Jaipur.

¶8

Ramavtar Gurjar S/o Shri Chandgi Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Plot No. 44, Vinayak Enclave, Gokulpura, Kalwar Road, Infront Of Rawan Gate, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶9

Bhagwat Singh Deval S/o Shri Shankardan, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Plot No. Ga-22, Bhawani Nagar, Keshav Path, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

¶10

Lalu Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Sadhu Ram, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Plot No. 109, Bandhu Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur.

¶11

Ladu Ram Gusai S/o Shri Ghisa Puri, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No. 83B, Laxmi Nagar, Hatwara Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶12

Damodar Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Nabhawala, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶13

Govind Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Badra Narayan Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Post Tunga District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶14

Girdhar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 616, Kailash Path, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶15

Kashi Nath Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Dutt Sharma, Aged

(2 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

[CW-8942/2024]

About 64 Years, Resident Of 132, Gali No. 8, Ganesh Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶20

Radhey Shyam Lakhera S/o Shri Bachu Lal Lakhera, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Post Sainthal District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶21

Padam Chand Khandelwal S/o Shri Govind Prasad Gupta, Aged About 62 Years, R/o V And P Garh Himmatsingh, Tehsil Mandawar, Distt. Dausa.

¶22

Ramakant Sharma S/o Late Shri Suraj Mal Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of A-31, Kumawat Colony, Marg A-11, Near Osv School, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶23

Ramavtar Singh Yadav S/o Shri Ganpat Ram Yadav, Aged About 64 Years, R/o V And P Gandala, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan.

¶24

Mahaveer Singh S/o Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o V And P Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶25

Kaushal Kishore Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Plot No.6, Jagdamba Nagar, Bajrang Dwar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶26

Chhitar Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Bhichoon District Jaipur.

¶27

Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Prahlad Chand Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 93-I-Hanuman Vatika, Hirapura, 200 Feet Byepass, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

¶28

Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Jodhsingh, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Gha-20, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶29

Mohan Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Plot No. 40, Sindhu Nagar, Pratap Marg, Choraha Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶30

Lal Chand Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Malwa Post Shivdaspura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.

¶31

Vishnu Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Post Nimeda, Via Jhotwara, District Jaipur.

¶32

Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhonri Lal Sharma,

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

[CW-8942/2024]

(3 of 6)

Aged About 65 Years, R/o 141 B, Shyam Enclave, Panchawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

¶37

Kalu Ram Chhipa S/o Late Shri Murlidhar, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. A-8, Shivpuri Colony, Satya Nagar, Near Datar Singh Ka Bunglow, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶38

Ramavtar Sharma S/o Shri Jagmohan Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No. 19, Heerawat Nagar, Near Railway Station, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶39

----Petitioners

¶40

Versus

¶41

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶42

The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶43

The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Rsrtc), Pariwahan Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopesh Kumar for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini

¶46

For Respondent(s) :

¶47

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶48

30/05/2024

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition as the representations dated 08.04.2024 and 30.04.2024 (Annexure-7 and Annexure-8) sent by the petitioner to the respondents was not considered.

¶50

In a recent order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Pawan

¶51

Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1665/2024; Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:5792) , considering

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

[CW-8942/2024]

(4 of 6)

that the representation filed by the litigants were not being addressed by the State and its instrumentalities, this Court observed as under:

¶56

“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 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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

[CW-8942/2024]

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.

¶64

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 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.

¶65

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.”

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:25986]

[CW-8942/2024]

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

¶73

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶74

JKP/137

Raj Kumar Singh S/O Late Shri Rajpal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh S/O Late Shri Rajpal Singh 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

Yatharth Parashar S/O Shri Jitendra Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Lathiya Ashwin Parshottambhai S/O Mr. Parshottambhai Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt Dhakoli Devi Andanr Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Janesh Kumar S/O Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Hemat Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shailendra S/O Shri Ramotar Vs Union of India