[2026:RJ-JP:25493] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7216/2026 URN: CW / 15865U / 2026 1. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Dulichand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Rambhit, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan, Presently Working As A Iv Class Employee, Ambedhkar Hostel, Gangdhar. 2. Jamna Bai W/o Mukesh Kumar, R/o Rambhit, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan, Presently Working As A Iv Class Employee, Ambedhkar Hostel, Gangdhar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 08/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as Class-IV employee with the respondent department for last more than 13 years but their cases have not been considered for regularization though the respondents are having vacant posts. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8332/2002, decided on 29.08.2025, submits that [2026:RJ-JP:25493] (2 of 2) [CW-7216/2026] the petitioners may be permitted to make representation to the respondent authorities with regard to their claim for regularization in light of the observations made in the case of Nawal Kishore (supra). 3. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days from today. 4. In case any representation is received by the respondents from the petitioners within the given period of 30 days, same shall be considered in light of the observations given in the case of Nawal Kishore (supra) by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. It goes without saying that if the respondents find the case of the petitioners fit for regularization in light of the observations made in the case of Nawal Kishore (supra), required benefits be extended to them. 6. It is also made clear that in case the decision goes adverse to the petitioners, they would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to them. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava/15