Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44043 (RAJ)

MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJ RAJYA SA v. HONBLE MINISTER AND ORS

CW/40/2004 · 2025-11-17

Ashok Kumar Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:46239] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 40/2004 Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbokta Sangh Ltd. Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Honble Minister, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Deep Chand S/o Shri Sanwar Mal presently employed Steno- Typist Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbokta Sangh Ltd. Nehru Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 17/11/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Cooperative Minister in his revisional jurisdiction and has ordered that the respondent-employee is entitled for regularization on the post of Steno-Typist w.e.f. 31.12.1997 instead of 31.03.2003. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties fairly admits this fact that the due benefits as ordered vide impugned order dated 07.07.2003 has already been extended to the respondent- employee. 3. Only submission of counsel for the petitioner is that though they have extended the benefits as ordered but the order dated 07.07.2003 is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority who has [2025:RJ-JP:46239] (2 of 2) [CW-40/2004] passed this order and therefore the same may not be treated as Precedent. 4. Taking into consideration the material fact that the due benefits have already been extended to the respondent-employee as ordered vide order dated 07.07.2003, this Court at this stage is not inclined to interfere in this order. In view of the plea of jurisdiction raised by the counsel for the petitioner however, this Court would like to keep upon the issue of jurisdiction for adjudication in appropriate case and this impugned order shall not be treated to be precedent. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of as above. 6. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /71