[2026:RJ-JP:348]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17136/2025 Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ghasidya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village And Post Sewa, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through, Additional Chief Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Director And Paden Joint Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Rajasthan Jaipur

3. Dy. Director (Admn.), Directorate Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

4. Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Singh with Mr. Harshwardhan Meena for Mr. R D Meena For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

07/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice dated 18.09.2025 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 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 condu