Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagirath Singh Rathore vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42877]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17409/2024
1. Bhagirath Singh Rathore S/o Swai Singh Rathore, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Village Kkalyanpura, Post Raniganw,
Tehsil Makarana, District Didwana Kuchaman (Raj.).
2. Vimala Choudhary W/o Rajuram, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Vpo Jusariya, Tehsil Makarana, District Didwana-
Kuchaman (Raj.).
3. Sudha Sharma D/o Gouri Shabnker Sharma, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Vpo Chhaganiyo Ka Mohalla, Merta City,
Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur (Raj.).
4. Bhagirathi D/o Laxminarayan Dave, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Vpo Somaniyo Ki Pol, Brahmpuri, Merta, Tehsil Merta
District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Nagaur.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gejendra Singh Shekhawat for
Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
21/10/2024
1. Grievance of the petitioners inter alia, arises out of inaction
on part of the respondents in according them correct service
benefits and notional benefits which they claim with effect from
the year 2008.
[2024:RJ-JD:42877] (2 of 3) [CW-17409/2024]
2. On a Court query as to why the instant petition has been
filed so belatedly, given that the benefits are sought with effect
from year 2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the said benefits are recurring in nature. The cause of action,
therefore, continues from day to day. Petitioners were throughout
sanguine that their claim would be accepted, but it is only when
they finally they lost hope of any positive action on the part of the
respondents, the instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the
benefits sought are recurring in nature qua the aforesaid
grievance, the petitioners may be granted liberty to file are
presentation before the competent authority and the same can
then be decided by passing appropriate administrative orders, in
accordance with law.
5. Request seems to be fair.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on
order/judgment in Smt. Sunita Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8722/2010 decided on
22.11.2011 at Jaipur Bench.
7. 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.
8. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits
of submissions as above, the writ petition is disposed of with a
liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation, which shall
[2024:RJ-JD:42877] (3 of 3) [CW-17409/2024]
be gone into by the competent authority and appropriate
administrative order shall be passed in accordance with law.
9. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go
through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners as mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent
mind on the applicability of the same before passing any order.
10. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
53-/Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
