Disposed

Anuradha Gurjar D/O Om Ramswaroop Gurjar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2025CW/3453/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pensioner sought consequential service benefits and seniority from the date lower-merit candidates were appointed. Court referred to precedent on fresh cause of action when State faults delay appointments. Petitioner directed to file representation. Director to decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; Petitioner to file representation; Director to decide on equitable seniority benefits within two months.

Anuradha Gurjar D/O Om Ramswaroop Gurjar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49196]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2020

¶4

Anuradha Gurjar D/o Om Ramswaroop Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 66, Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶10

Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh for Mr. R.D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order

¶14

03/12/2025

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dealing with somewhat identical issue, Coordinate Bench of this Court, referring to the earlier opinions, in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP Number 7283 of 2014, allowed opportunity to the petitioners therein, to make a representation to the respondent No.2 -Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, observing thus:

¶16

“This Court in Suman Bai and Another Vs. State and Others – 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, held that candidates in lower order of merit cannot become entitled merely because they had approached court earlier. Petitioners had a fresh

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49196]

[CW-3453/2020]

cause of action for approaching in such situation and their writ petition not barred either as res judicata or as being him in properly constituted. This directed the respondents to treat petitioners senior to respondents, who were in lower order of merit.

¶21

It is further contended in the writ petition that in the matter of School Lecturers (English) in the same Department, where appointments were delayed because of the fault of the State authorities, the candidates were accorded appointment from the date the candidates stood lower in merit were appointed and they have been granted all consequential benefits of services.

¶22

The petitioners approached the respondents by way of representations for extending them same benefits of service which have been granted to the candidates who stood lower in merit than the petitioners, but till date nothing has been done. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to treat their appointment from the date the candidates lower in merit, were given, with all consequential benefits of service, such as seniority, continuity of service, pay fixation, grant of annual grade increments.

¶23

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioners to make a representation to respondent no.2 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, along-with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts stated above, consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its making, addressing the grievance of the petitioners for extending them the relief as prayed for, as the candidates, who stood lower in merit, are getting benefit of higher pay, seniority, annual grade increments and other service benefits including the selection scales. If the respondent no.2 decides to place the petitioners above in seniority than the candidates who stood lower in merit, then the petitioners would be entitled to all benefits of seniority but they would be entitled only to notional benefits.”

[2025:RJ-JP:49196]

[CW-3453/2020]

(3 of 4)

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the backdrop of the adjudication made in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶28

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra).

¶29

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.3 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order addressing grievances of the petitioner for extending the same relief as accorded in favour of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors.

¶30

The exercise aforesaid shall be undertaking by the respondent No.3 – Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶31

In case, the claim of the petitioner is found covered by the adjudication as referred to and relied upon in the case of Manoj Khandelwal & Ors. (supra); the petitioner too be extended the same benefit.

[2025:RJ-JP:49196]

[CW-3453/2020]

(4 of 4)

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶36

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶37

HEENA/20

Anuradha Gurjar D/O Om Ramswaroop Gurjar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Gurjar D/O Om Ramswaroop Gurjar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Vs Executive Director Traffic

Jeevan Lal Son of Shri Ramji Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Shri Narayan S/O Sh. Sharvan Meena Vs the Managing Director

Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Basanti Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr. Jitendra Yadav S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan