[2025:RJ-JD:48437]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18944/2025

1. Mamta Acharya D/o Chandra Shekhar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sur Bai Ka Mandir, Amet, District Rajsamand.

2. Bhanwar Singh Rajput S/o Bheru Singh Rajput, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Rao Rajput Basti, Kunwariya, District Rajsamand.

3. Kamlesh Kumar Vaishav S/o Kalyan Das, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Motipura, Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh.

4. Mohan Singh S/o Raju Singh Rawat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bera Goinda, Deepawas, District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Amet, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

11/11/2025

1. Heard.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the facts of the present writ petition are similar to the facts in Keshar Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15624/2025, decided on 01.09.2025 by the co- ordinate bench of this Court which, in turn, relied upon the decision of the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12109/2018, decided on 18.07.2018.

3. The order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Keshar Singh Chauhan’s case (supra) reads as under:-

“1. Petition herein arises, inter alia, out of the action on the part of the respondents in not according the correct service and notional benefits to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and the same be decided by passing appropriate administrative orders, in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on order/judgment in Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12109/2018, decided on 18.07.2018 at Jaipur Bench and submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

4. Request seems to be fair.

5. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be filed by them.

6. In the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation, which shall be gone into by the competent authority and appropriate administrative order shall be passed in accordance with law.

7. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent mind on the applicability of the same before passing any order.

8. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.”

4. In light of the above, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in Keshar Singh Chauhan’s case (supra).

5. All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

382-BhumikaP/-