The court directed the state authorities to consider and decide upon the petitioners' representations by passing a reasoned speaking order, ensuring consistency with previous judicial precedents regarding the grant of equivalent service benefits.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Writ jurisdiction - Educational employment benefits - Petitioners seeking equivalent benefits granted to similarly situated persons - Court directs authorities to decide representation by way of a speaking order in light of the cited precedents within a fixed timeframe. (Paras 1, 2, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a group of employees, approached the High Court seeking parity in benefits previously granted to similarly situated individuals by the Court in earlier judgments. They alleged that their representations were not being considered by the state authorities.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations within four weeks via a speaking order, strictly adhering to the principles laid down in similar cases previously decided by the Court.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as similarly situated employees despite the respondents' failure to act on their representations.

Ratio Decidendi: If a representation is filed, the authority is legally obligated to consider it and dispose of the same through a reasoned (speaking) order in accordance with law and settled precedents.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. submission that issues are covered by existing court precedents. (Para 1 , 2)
2. mandate to decide representation via a speaking order in accordance with law. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

02/04/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2026 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3455/2026 : Raju Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the writ petition has been disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the dictum encapsulated in D.B. S.A.W. No.293/2020 titled The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Dal Chand Jat (at Jaipur Bench) and has submitted that the appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed therein inter alia similar issues and the same has been decided in favor of similar situated persons as that of the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents are not considering the representation filed by the petitioners and declining the grant of equivalent benefits.

3. Heard the submissions put forth.

4. In light of facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court directs that if an appropriate representation has been filed by the petitioners, within a period of fortnight of date of passing this order, the same shall accordingly be dealt by the respondents and shall be considered by way of a speaking order within a period of four weeks, strictly in accordance with law, in light of Pawan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1665/2024; Neutral Citation:2024:RJ-JP:5792) and order dated 29.07.2015 in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2963/2007 (Gopal Kumawat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

5. In light of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any shall also stand disposed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9916

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)Nupur Bhati, JRadha Kumari Meghwal – AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7456/2026

The court directed the state authorities to consider and decide upon the petitioners' representations by passing a reasoned speaking order, ensuring consistency with previous judicial precedents regarding the grant of equivalent service benefits.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Nupur Bhati, J
Radha Kumari Meghwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7456/2026