Bharat Sharma, S/o Shri. Ramkaran Sharma, Aged About v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Sankalp Vijay Ms. Ritika Naruka Ms. Tanvisha Pant Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Sara Parveen Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with Ms. Deepa Singh Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Iliyas Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order [2025:RJ-JP:27386] (2 of 5) [CW-9290/2024] 22/07/2025 For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2025 filed by the applicants/petitioners for taking on record the document appended therewith, which is not opposed by the learned counsels for the respondents, the same is allowed. The document appended with application is taken on record. This writ petition is filed with following prayers:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Special Government Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies (Annexure - P/11) be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the Writ Petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsels for the respondents as to maintainability of the writ petition for the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (for brevity “the Act of 1976”). Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, inviting attention of this Court towards Section 4 of the Act of 1976, would submit that the Tribunal is competent to hear an [2025:RJ-JP:27386] (3 of 5) [CW-9290/2024] appeal against an order passed by an officer/authority on any service matter or matters affecting a Government servant in his personal capacity and since, in the instant case, it is an association of the employees who has approached this Court, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter. He further submits that the Revenue Department has admitted in its reply that the order impugned suffers from an illegality and therefore, this writ petition is maintainable. He asserted that since, the order impugned issued by the State Government has been addressed to all the District Collectors in the State of Rajasthan and is not directed against any individual Government Servant, the appeal, even otherwise, would not be maintainable before the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that the preliminary objection be rejected and the writ petition be heard on its merit. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the order impugned in the writ peition dated

07.06.2023 relates to the service condition of the members of the petitioner No.1-association, i.e., the Government servants and therefore, falls within the mischief of ‘service matters’ as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1976. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since, Section 4 of the Act of 1976 authorizes the Tribunal to hear an appeal against an order on any service matter/matters affecting a Government servant in his personal capacity only, an appeal preferred by the association would not be maintainable, does not merit acceptance for the reason that the provisions of the Act of 1976 cannot be given such narrow and restricted interpretation. In the considered opinion of this Court, the phraseology used in Section 4 of the Act of 1976 [2025:RJ-JP:27386] (4 of 5) [CW-9290/2024] authorizing an affected Government servant in his personal capacity to file an appeal includes a joint appeal by more than one Government servant as also an appeal by an authorized union/association, if the grievance raised is not individual; but, common to all. It is trite law that a registered association can always espouse cause of its members as good as by an individual member. It is also not in dispute before this Court that a joint appeal by more than one Government servant is maintainable before the Tribunal. Moreover, such an interpretation of Section 4 of the Act of 1976 advances the object of avoidance of multiplicity of litigation as well as preservation of ‘green energy’, i.e., trees by saving a huge amount of paper. Objection of Shri Sharma that since, the order impugned is addressed to all the District Collectors in the State of Rajasthan and is not directed against any individual, the appeal under the Act of 1976 would not be maintainable, is devoid of any substance. As already observed, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that the order impugned adversely affects the service conditions of the members of the petitioner No.1-association, who are Government servants and their grievance is common. Even if it is not addressed to any individual Government Servant, it cannot be held that no appeal thereagainst under the Act of 1976 would be maintainable in the aforesaid circumstances. Although, it has been canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue Department-the respondent No.3, has admitted in its reply that the order impugned is illegal but, despite opportunity, he could not demonstrate from the joint reply filed by the respondents No.3, 6 [2025:RJ-JP:27386] (5 of 5) [CW-9290/2024] & 7 containing any such admission. Even otherwise, the order impugned in the writ petition is issued by the State Government through Food and Civil Supplies Department, any averment as to its validity by the Revenue Department may not have sweeping bearing on the issue. Moreover, if contents of the reply filed by the respondent No.3 has any effect on the validity of the order impugned, this plea can be raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no substance in the objections raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners against the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsels for the respondents as to maintainability of the writ petition for availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act of 1976. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Manish/171 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J