Laxman Regar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17503)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11151 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxman Regar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17503) on 4 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17503]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7099/2025

1.    Laxman Regar S/o Sohan Lal Regar, Aged About 44 Years,
      R/o Gegar Mohalla, Khamnor, District Rajsamand.
2.    Sushila Kanwar W/o Karan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
      Ward No. 04, Mukhya Gaon, Aantri, District Rajsamand.
3.    Jhalo Ram Gameti S/o Daulaji Bhil, Aged About 41 Years, R/
      o Bhat Ka Vadala, Dungari, District Udaipur.
4.    Roshan Kunwar W/o Jorawar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/
      o Karanpur, District Udaipur.
5.    Om Prakash Joshi S/o Veer Bhan Lal Joshi, Aged About 37
      Years, R/o 01, Brahampuri, Jhalo Ki Madar, Khamnor, District
      Rajsamand.
6.    Mahima Hemnani D/o Bhagwan Das Hemani, Aged About 37
      Years, R/o House No. 156, Shanti Colony, Kankroli, District
      Rajsamand.
                                                       ----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, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.    District Programme Coordinator And District Collector,
      Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4.    Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5.    Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sayra, District
      Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gurjar.
For Respondent(s)         :


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral) 04/04/2025

1. Petition herein arises, inter alia, out of the inaction on the

part of the respondents in not according the correct service and

notional benefits to the petitioners on the post of LDC pursuant to

advertisement of the year 2013.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners may be granted

[2025:RJ-JD:17503] (2 of 2) [CW-7099/2025]

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 petitioners also relies on

order/judgment in Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. v. 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 petitioners 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 a 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

petitioners 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.

(ARUN MONGA),J 3-Jitender/Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)