Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims parity of pay scale in comparison with Bheru Lal and ors. whose writ petition No. 4440/1999 -Bheru Lal and ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan came to be decided by this Court on 25.3.2009.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice for demand of justice has already been served by the counsel for the petitioner to the respondents vide Annex. 9 dtd. 24.2.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the fact of passing of similar order in the case of one Balmukund Sharma after retirement as compounder on the basis of order of this Court in SBCWP No. 380/2014 -Bal Mukund Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors. decided on 22.1.2014. When the similar pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated persons, there appears to be no reason for the respondents not to extend the same benefit to the petitioner also. However, instead of repeated directions of this Court for the same purpose, it is considered expedient that the petitioner should have pursued his notice for demand of justice bringing on record such subsequent developments also in the case of Bal Mukund Sharma (supra) in whose case, the order has been passed by the Director of Ayurved Department on 31.3.2014. It was expected of the said authority to pass appropriate orders disposing of the notice for demand of justice and representation of the petitioner also by an speaking order.
(3.) THEREFORE , while the present writ petition is considered premature, the same is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to first approach the said authority, namely, the Director of Ayurved Department with a suitable representation placing on record the requisite evidence relied upon by the petitioner and the said authority is expected to pass an speaking order expeditiously preferably after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;