[2025:RJ-JP:26882] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10675/2025 Brij Bhushan Sharma S/o Late Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 83, Shivam Nagar Opposite SKIT College Gate No. 3, Ramnagariya, Jagatpura, Jaipur 302017, Currently Serving As Financial Advisor, Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Rajasthan. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 18/07/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22.05.2025 seeking promotion in the Higher Super Time Scale of Rajasthan Accounts Service. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024, issued following directions:- “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 [2025:RJ-JP:26882] (2 of 3) [CW-10675/2025] 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 conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. [2025:RJ-JP:26882] (3 of 3) [CW-10675/2025] In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut- down before the already exceedingly over- burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with.” This Court is informed that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan has issued a circular dated 19.02.2024 to all the Department to ensure their compliance. However, from the material on record, it transpires that despite receipt of the representation in the department on 22.05.2025, it is still undecided. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of intimation of this order with its communication to the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/31