Anil Kumar Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9092 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37811]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17493/2023

1. Anil Kumar Suthar S/o Vardi Chand Suthar, Aged About 38 Years, Mandir Ke Pass, Kotri Kalan, Tehsil Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment 07.12.2011)

2. Govind Singh Kitawat S/o Kesar Singh Kitawat, Aged About 45 Years, 5, Post Office Rashmi, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment 01.04.2012)

3. Anil Vijayvargiya S/o Ashok Vijayvargiya, Aged About 40 Years, Near Old Hospital, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment 01.05.2013)

4. Prem Shankar Jatav S/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Village Jasma, Tehsil Bhupal Sagar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Date Of Appointment 01.04.2016).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Commissioner (Egs), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. The District Collector, Chittorgarh.

6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

8. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

9. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

10. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhupal Sagar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

                                    [2023:RJ-JD:37811]                        (2 of 2)                          [CW-17493/2023]


                                                                                                         ----Respondents


                                   For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
                                   For Respondent(s)              :    ---

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Judgment

04/11/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for

sometime, realizing that a liberty was granted to similarly situated

employees to file a fresh representation and it was expected from

the State Government to take an expeditious decision on the

same, is not pressing this petition.

2. The writ petition is disposed as not pressed with liberty to file

the fresh representation.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J 54-DhananjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)