Ramsahay Kushwah S/O Lutteram Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramsahay Kushwah S/O Lutteram Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner at liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2 (District Collector, Karauli) within two weeks; respondent No.2 to decide it in the light of the ratio in Ajay Kumar (supra) with a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days and to communicate the decision by speed-post or e-mail; petitioner free to approach the Court afresh if dissatisfied. No reinstatement ordered; merits expressly left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be directed to expeditiously decide the petitioner's representation dated 02.04.2025 filed against his suspension order dated 13.03.2024, the petitioner claiming entitlement to reinstatement pending inquiry on the strength of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 2389).

Court's answer

Considering the limited prayer, the Court deemed it just and proper to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievances before respondent No.2 (District Collector, Karauli) within two weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

If such representation is filed within the stipulated period, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide it in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar (supra), with a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from receipt of the representation.

Key takeaways

After deciding the representation, respondent No.2 is under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner by speed-post or through e-mail, if an e-mail address was provided in the representation.ratio¶17
If the petitioner is not satisfied with respondent No.2's decision on his representation, he would be at liberty to approach this Court with a fresh petition.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Anil Kumar Upman, J.), order dated 15.05.2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8698/2026, Ramsahay Kushwah v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. The petitioner, suspended by order dated 13.03.2024, sought a direction to the respondents to expeditiously decide his representation dated 02.04.2025 against the suspension order, placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 2389, and claiming entitlement to reinstatement pending inquiry. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2 (District Collector, Karauli) within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. Any such representation is to be considered and decided by respondent No.2 in the light of the ratio laid down in Ajay Kumar (supra), by a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of receipt, with the decision communicated to the petitioner by speed-post or e-mail if an e-mail address was furnished. If dissatisfied with that decision, the petitioner may approach the Court with a fresh petition. The stay application and pending application(s) were likewise disposed of.

[2026:RJ-JP:20611]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8698/2026

Ramsahay Kushwah S/o Lutteram Kushwah, Age 35 Years, R/o Village Mengari, PO: Fatehpur, District Karauli (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Karauli.

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dharmendra Pareek
For Respondent(s)	:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

15/05/2026

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents may be directed to expeditiously decide the representation dated 02.04.2025 filed by the petitioner against his suspension order dated 13.03.2024. Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary versus Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 and submits that petitioner is entitled to reinstatement pending inquiry.

Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation ventilating his grievances before the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of

[2026:RJ-JP:20611]

[CW-8698/2026]

(2 of 2)

this order. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar (supra), but in case of deviation, with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation . After the decision, the respondent No.2 is under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed-post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail address in his representation.

In the event, the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the respondent No.2 on his representation, he would be at liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition.

With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the petitioner’s representation independently and strictly in accordance with law.

The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

LALIT MOHAN /31