The court established that all similarly situated individuals must receive equal treatment and benefits as per previous judgments, reinforcing the principles of equality and the finality of judicial decisions.

ORDER :

1. With a limited prayer, the instant writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondents to decide his representation within a stipulated time.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21/2020 on 21.07.2023. Counsel submits that at later stage, the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) made judgment “in rem” in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10939/2013 with the following observations and directions:

“11. Now, the question which emerges for consideration of this Court is whether the benefits which have been given to the similarly situated persons by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) can be given to the present petitioners and also to those persons who have not approached this Court by way of filing of any petitions.

12. On various occasions, Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that two equals must be treated equally. Merely because one person has approached this Court, would not mean that the persons who are similarly situated, but have not approached this Court, should be treated differently.

13. The normal rule is that when a set of persons is given a relief by this Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending the same benefits. Not doing so, would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, to deny the same benefits to the similarly situated persons on the touchstone of what has been held and granted to a particular set of persons would tantamount to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

14. Looking to the fact that thousands of similarly situated persons are aggrieved and some of them have approached this Court and some of them are sitting silently, it is expected from the authorities to grant the same benefits to all the aggrieved persons whether they approached this Court or not.

15. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena number of judgments that justice is not a saleable commodity. The State Authorities cannot be allowed to compel the aggrieved persons to approach the Court of law and get similar orders. Once the issue has been decided by the Court of law and the same has not been challenged by the State Authorities before any Appellate Authority and thus, it has attained finality, then the State Authorities are bound by the same. The State should not unnecessarily compel all aggrieved persons to knock the doors of the Court again and again for getting similar orders. The “doctrine of finality of judgment” is applicable in such matters.

16. It is settled proposition of law that when a judgment is pronounced by the Court, affecting the rights of public at large, then the said judgment should be treated as a judgment ‘in rem’ with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons whether they approached this Court or not. With such a pronouncement, the obligation is casted upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. The judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) can be treated as a judgment “in rem” and not “in personam” henceforth. The respondents are directed to grant all the benefits issued by this Court in the case of Vijay Singh (supra) to all similarly situated aggrieved persons without compelling them to approach this Court again and again for getting similar orders.

17. For this purpose, the petitioners and all similarly placed persons may approach the Secretary or the Head of their respective departments by way of filing appropriate representations for redressal of their grievances. The Secretary and the Head of the respective department are expected to consider the case a