[2025:RJ-JP:14928] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4912/2002 Guman Singh S/o Shri Ummaid Singh, aged about 51 years, Resident of 383, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/04/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted as a police personnel, who was aged approximately 51 Years in 2002. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of the communication/letter dated 21.12.2000 whereby, adverse remarks were communicated to him and communication/letter dated 07.06.2002 whereby representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. Further, it is submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner may not be superseded due to the said adverse remarks however, the name of the petitioner may be considered for promotions at priority than the persons junior to him. [2025:RJ-JP:14928] (2 of 2) [CW-4912/2002] Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the petition was admitted long-back in the Year 2008. The matter was listed under the category/head legacy matters as per the directions of Hon’ble Chief Justice. When the matter is called, learned counsel for the respondents has not marked their presence. Howsoever, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that despite the best efforts made to communicate with the client via telephonic mode and letters sent via registered post for information/ updates qua the material facts i.e., whether the litigation as on date survives, if any details/instructions are there to contest the matter, no reply/response is received from the client qua the same. Furthermore, counsel has fairly conceded that he is unaware about the fact that whether litigant/client/petitioner is alive or not. Considering the afore-stated facts, this Court is of the opinion that as on date, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation; that the petitioner has not actively participated in the litigation; that the letters sent by the learned counsel remain unanswered, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, howsoever, petitioner is at liberty to revive the instant petition, if he so chooses. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/8