Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Baluram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39837]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15736/2024
1. Baluram S/o Ratana Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Vpo
Jakhali, Tehsil Makrana, District Didwana-Kuchaman
(Raj.).
2. Mohammed Aslam S/o Mohammad Yousuf, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Vpo Khari Masjid Ke Samne, Teliwara, Nagaur,
District Nagaur (Raj.).
3. Chittar Ram S/o Deepa Aram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Vpo Muana, Tehsil Nawa District Didwana-Kuchaman
(Raj.).
4. Natwar Singh S/o Jalam Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Vpo Kankariya, Tehsil Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman
(Raj.).
5. Renu Luna W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Vpo Bhanwata Road, Kuchaman City, Tehsil Kuchaman
City, District Didwana-Kuchaman (Raj.).
6. Kailash Chand Gour S/o Sitaram, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o Vpo Simbhoopura, Tehsil Nawa, R/o Vpo District
Didwana-Kuchaman (Raj.).
7. Rajendra Kumar Vyas S/o Shivkaran Vyas, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village Riyashyamdas Post Jogimagra, Tehsil
Merta City, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Nagaur.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh for
Mr. R.S.Bhardwaj.
(Downloaded on 25/09/2024 at 09:12:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:39837] (2 of 3) [CW-15736/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
25/09/2024
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.
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 &
[2024:RJ-JD:39837] (3 of 3) [CW-15736/2024]
Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8722/2010 decided on22.11.2011
at Jaipur Bench.
7. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore,
there 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
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
85-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
