[2025:RJ-JP:38066] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 353/2002 1. Hemraj S/o Shri Mangi Lal, aged about 45 years, R/o 50/490, Pratap Nagar, Housing Board, Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Lal Chand Sharma S/o Shri Briddhi Chand Ji, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Balavala, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. 3. Girdhar Gopal S/o Shri Mahavir Jagarwal, aged about 46 years, R/o 8/208, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Registrar (Marketing), Co-operative Societies (Co- Operative Deptt.), Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur, Liquidator, Rajasthan State Co-Operative Sheep And Wool Marketing Federation Limited. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/09/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition for seeking direction against the respondents to absorb the petitioners on equivalent post of pay scale, which they are working on prior to becoming surplus or sent on deputation, as well as to direct the respondent-Government to act as per the provisions of absorption of surplus employees rules while absorbing the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:38066] (2 of 3) [CW-353/2002] 2. It is stated that the petitioners were earlier working in the Rajasthan State Co-operative Sheep and Wool Marketing Federation Limited and vide order dated 21.06.2000, on being declared surplus from the federation, they were absorbed in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Department on different posts. It has been submitted that although, the order dated 21.06.2000 mandates that fixation of the pay of the petitioners after absorption shall be done in accordance with the last pay certificate of the incumbents, yet the petitioners were absorbed on the post, which was carrying lower pay scale than the pay scale which was sanctioned to the petitioners, while they were working in federation prior to their absorption. 3. It is also submitted that some of the employees of federation were absorbed in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government, who have been granted same pay scale which they were getting prior to their absorption. Thus, the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination and are entitled for the similar benefit which has been given to other similarly situated persons. 4. Respondent No.3-Rajasthan State Co-operative Sheep and Wool Marketing Federation Limited filed reply to the writ petition that the federation has gone into liquidation and thereafter, liquidator was substituted in place of respondent No.3. 5. On perusal of parties of the writ petition would reveal that although, the petitioner is leveling allegation of granting lower pay scale against the Secretary Panchayati Raj Department, yet the said Department has not been impleaded as party to the writ petition. Under these circumstances, in absence of proper party, [2025:RJ-JP:38066] (3 of 3) [CW-353/2002] the claim raised by the petitioner cannot be properly examined. Although, one reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Government, yet on perusal of the affidavit it reveals that such reply has been filed by the officer of Animal Husbandry Department, which is not party to the writ petition. 6. This writ petition was filed way back in the year 2002, hence, instead of dismissing the writ petition on account of not impleading proper parties, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioners to make a representation before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, with regard to their grievances in respect of grant of lower pay scale or absorption on lower post. In case, any such representation is made, the same shall be considered by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department and shall be decided by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation of a certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on merits of the case. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/9