[2025:RJ-JP:38118] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14129/2025 Anurag Gupta S/o Shri Munna Lal Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, R/o V And P Danta/kelwara, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran At Present Working On The Post Of Technician-II, In The Office Of Assistant Engineer (O And M) JVVNL Kelwara, Shahbad District Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Its Managing Director. 2. Zonal Chief Engineer (KZ), Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Old Power House, Khai Road, Nayapura, Kota. 3. Assistant Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Discom Kelwara District Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/09/2025 1. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submitted that he would be satisfied if: the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.2-Zonal Chief Engineer (KZ), Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Kota encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the same in a time bound manner while considering the fact that he is a low paid employee and it will affect his seniority. [2025:RJ-JP:38118] (2 of 2) [CW-14129/2025] 2. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. 3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.2 within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of such representation by a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. 4. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide such representation has been issued only with a view to ensure an expeditious redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 5. Furthermore, it is needless to say that after adjudication of the representation, if any cause of action still survives, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies available under the law. 6. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /56