Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ram Gopal Jat S/O Shri Sukha Ram Jat vs Rajasthan State Road Transport … on 15 January, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6648/2019
Ram Gopal Jat S/o Shri Sukha Ram Jat, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Village Raghunathpur, Post Kochhor, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through
Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu
House, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Deedwana Depot, Deedwana, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.A. Katta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
15/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice
dated 15.03.2019 sent by the petitioner to the respondents was
not considered.
2. 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:
“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(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2018] (2 of 3) [CW-6648/2019]protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-
being, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2018] (3 of 3) [CW-6648/2019]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.
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 over-
burdened courts.”
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/129
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)