[2025:RJ-JP:6813] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/2025 Jagram Meena Son of Ram Sahai Meena, aged about 60 Years, Address 100/s-2, Shiv Mandir Road, Vivek Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302017. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department (Wrd), Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005. 2. Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel (Dop), Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005. 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan) - 305001. 4. Joint Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department (WRD), Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302005. 5. Additional Secretary and Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (WRD), Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (IGNP) Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/02/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made in this petition for issuing a direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:6813] (2 of 3) [CW-2455/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 06.11.2024 and inspite of passing of considerable time, till date the same has not been decided for the reasons best known to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024) has issued a general mandamus for all the Departments of the State to decide the representation of the aggrieved persons within a stipulated time but till date, the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided, hence a direction be issued to the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided and the same is required to be decided by the respondent No. 1 on its merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation (pending, if any) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents to decide [2025:RJ-JP:6813] (3 of 3) [CW-2455/2025] the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/7