[2025:RJ-JP:6929] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10245/2008 Gajandhar Nandwana S/o Shri Ganga Shankar Nandwana, aged about 58 years, Resident of Radha Ballabh Marg, Bohron ka Mohalla, Sanganer, District jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer (Investigation, Design & Research), Irrigation Department, JLN Marg, Opposite MNIT, Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Director (Hydrology), Irrigation Department, Sichai Bhawan, JLN Marg, jaipur. 4. The Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Saumil Sharma for Mr.Gopal Krishan, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the respondents by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that benefit of third selection scale on completion of 27 years of service under the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- was granted to the petitioner which was withdrawn and lower down to Rs.5,500-9,000/- without any justified reason. Counsel submits that the petitioner assailed [2025:RJ-JP:6929] (2 of 4) [CW-10245/2008] the aforesaid action of the respondents by way of filing two different petition bearing Nos.2436/2002 and 3079/2004. Counsel submits that both the petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common order dated 28.05.2008 by this Court and the respondents were directed to pass fresh order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 3. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 28.05.2008, the petitioner submitted a detailed comprehension representation justifying his claim for getting the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-, as the same was extended to the similarly situated persons, namely, Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, Ramkaran Sharma, Mukut Bihari and Shivcharan Lal by the respondents. Counsel submits that the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner in a cursory manner without passing a reasoned and cogent order. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that in compliance of the letter dated 10.10.2000 issued by the Department of Finance and in compliance of the letter dated 21.03.2001 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, the order impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief, as sought for in the writ petition and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:6929] (3 of 4) [CW-10245/2008] 6. Perusal of the record indicates that on earlier occasion, the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- was extended to the petitioner which was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents by refixing the petitioner under the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/-, and the aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner, by way of filing the above two writ petitions, which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2008 with specific directions to the respondents to pass a fresh and reasoned order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 7. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has submitted a detailed comprehensive representation in the Office of the respondents, but without going through the contents of the same and without assigning any reason, the order impugned has been passed. The order impugned has been passed in contravention to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2008 and such action of the respondents is liable to be deprecated and the same amounts to contempt of this Court. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order 28.07.2008 stands quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back again to the respondents for deciding the representation of the petitioner again by passing a reasoned speaking order, after perusing the contents of the representation. The respondents are further directed to look into the matter as to whether the similar situated persons, namely, Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, Ramkaran Sharma, Mukut Bihari and Shivcharan Lal were granted the same benefits and whether the petitioner is also entitled to get the same. It is made clear that if the respondents arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit, the same be [2025:RJ-JP:6929] (4 of 4) [CW-10245/2008] extended to the petitioner and if not, then the respondents are supposed to pass a detailed speaking order. 9. Needless to observe, the respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of two months. 10. All other application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /68