[2025:RJ-JP:34138] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12800/2025 Manohar Lal Saini S/o Late Sh. Panchu Ram Saini, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Old Rajgarh, Post - Rajgarh, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, PHED, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. The Chief Engineer (Administration), PHED, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. The Superintending Engineer, PHED, Alwar. 4. The Assistant Engineer, PHED, Sub-Division Rajgarh, District - Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/08/2025 1. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that issue with regard to grant of selection grade was considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008 (Sohan Lal Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on 17.11.2008. Even then when similar benefits were not given to similarly situated persons, they subsequently approached this Court by way of filling a batch of writ petitions, led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14456/2016 (Mitthu Lal Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), in which, while allowing the writ petition, an observation has been given which reads as under: "Before parting with the order, this court would like to observed that once the issue has been settled by the court that the class of employees of which reference has been made are entitled for the grant of selection scale, in terms of para-5 of the notifications dt.25.01.1992 followed by 17.02.1998, on completion of 18 & 27 years of service, it is expected that the decision of this court may be made applicable in rem to all the employees [2025:RJ-JP:34138] (2 of 2) [CW-12800/2025] similarly situated and they shall not be asked to approach this court by filing their respective writ petitions." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the judgment in rem has been given, it was the bounden duty of the respondent-Government to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of earlier judgments delivered in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) & Mitthu Lal Teli (supra) but since it has not been done, the petitioner has no other alternative to file another writ petition. 3. It is a very sorry state of affairs that despite clear cut directions given by this Court in respect of earlier judgment in rem, similarly situated persons are being forced to approach this Court; whereas, by way of issuing a general order/circular, the State Government at its own level, should have taken a general decision to permit all the similarly situated persons the same benefit which has been granted by this Court in earlier writ petitions. 4. In the light of above, where the issue in hand has already been decided, there is no requirement to issue notices to the respondents. The writ petition is disposed off at this stage with the direction that the benefits awarded to the similarly situated persons in the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) & Mitthu Lal Teli (supra) be also granted and released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of in the above directions. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/55