Disposed¶31

Ramkumar Divedi S/O Shri Madhoram Divedi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2026CW/20929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Representation/legal notice not considered; direction to State instrumentalities to dispose of representations by speaking orders; Pawan Meena (2024:RJ-JP:5792) followed; welfare state as first responder; Article 226/227 discretionary jurisdiction; alternate remedy; Section 89 CPC spirit; natural justice/opportunity of hearing; time-bound disposal (30 days); Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Department; merits left untouched; neutral citation of instant order 2026:RJ-JP:926.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate/speaking orders strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or his counsel, preferably within 30 days; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶31

Ramkumar Divedi S/O Shri Madhoram Divedi Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be directed, without entering into merits, to consider the petitioner's representation (following his unadmitted legal notice dated 07.10.2025) and dispose of it by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording a hearing.

¶13

Court's answer

Following this Court's earlier decision in Pawan Meena (supra), and without going into the merits, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or his counsel.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are expected to pass a speaking order on the representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days.

¶30

Key takeaways

Observation that the prevailing condition in the State forces ordinary people to approach the High Court even merely to have their representations considered.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Single Judge (Sameer Jain, J.), order dated 09/01/2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20929/2025 [2026:RJ-JP:926]: Petitioner, whose legal notice dated 07.10.2025 to the State respondents (Department/Directorate of Sanskrit Education and a Rajkiya Varishttha Upadhyay) went unconsidered, sought direction for disposal of his representation. Following the Court's own earlier order of 02.02.2024 in Pawan Meena (SBCWP No. 1665/2024; 2024:RJ-JP:5792) — reproduced at length, exhorting the welfare State to act as 'first responders' to citizens' grievances, address representations by speaking orders consistent with natural justice, and embodying the spirit of Section 89 CPC — the Court, without going into merits, directed the respondents to consider the representation, pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and/or his counsel, and preferably within 30 days. Petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:926]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20929/2025

¶4

Ramkumar Divedi S/o Shri Madhoram Divedi, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Nidoli, Post Bhaurajpur, Kannoj (U.p.) At Present Residing At C/o Alok Divedi, Sector 6, House No. 299, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, 301019 Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Sanskrit Education, Secretriat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶8

Director Sanskrit Education Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶9

Rajkiya Varishttha Upadhyay, Sanskrit Vidhyalaya, Marwar Mundwa, District Nagar, Rajasthan.

¶10

		----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. D P Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order

¶12

09/01/2026

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice dated 07.10.2025 sent by the petitioner to the respondents was not considered.

¶14

In a recent order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Pawan 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:

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:926]

[CW-20929/2025]

“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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:926]

[CW-20929/2025]

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.

¶27

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.”

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

DEEPAK /130

Ramkumar Divedi S/O Shri Madhoram Divedi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar Divedi S/O Shri Madhoram Divedi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salma Tajnan W/O Shri Liyakat Ali D/O Shri Major Khan Tajnan Vs the Secretary

Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain S/O Shri Suresh Chand Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gyasi Ram S/O Shri Raghunath Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Agrawal S/O Shri Pooran Chand Agrawal Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Vikash Kumar S/O Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahbuddin Khan S/O Late Shri Asmail Khan Vs State of Rajasthan