[2025:RJ-JP:24404] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1781/2025 Radha Kumari W/o Shri Uday Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Opposite Rac, Gaushala Colony, District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Ambedkar Bhawan, G- 3/1, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur. 2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Ambedkar Bhawan, G-3/1, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Ambedkar Bhawan, G-3/1, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/07/2025 1. Indisputably, previously petitioner preferred one SB Civil Writ Petition No.13410/2023 before the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat at Jodhpur. In that writ petition, petitioner prayed for regularization of services as also grant of minimum of the regular pay scale for Class IV employee. That writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2023, in the light of judgment of Anokh Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Civil Writ Petition 372/2013, wherein the prayer of regularization of services of petitioners, was not pressed. 2. It is further undisputed that pursuant to order dated 19.09.2023 passed in SBCWP No.13410/2023, petitioner has been [2025:RJ-JP:24404] (2 of 2) [CW-1781/2025] awarded minimum of the regular pay scale as monthly wages, vide order dated 18.09.2024. However, petitioner has filed present writ petition before this Court, seeking prayer for regularization of her services. 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that, firstly, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and prayer of regularization of services, was not accepted, the petitioner, in order to get favourable order of regularization, has filed present petition before this Court, which is a clear case of bench hunting. Secondly, the previous writ petition was disposed of in the light of judgment delivered in case of Anokh Bai (Supra), wherein the issue of regularization was not pressed. No second writ petition, on the basis of similar cause of action can be entertained. 4. This Court finds that the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. However, counsel for petitioner, having instructions of petitioner, does not want to press this petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same. 5. Permission is granted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/1