Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Lal Jakhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38532) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38532]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15283/2025
1. Bhanwar Lal Jakhar S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Binthwaliya, District Nagaur.
2. Rafiuqe Khan S/o Fajaludeen Khan, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Kayam Nagar, Gali No. 11, Deedwana, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3. Hemkaran Saini S/o Omprakash, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o Village Ganj, Post Kishangarhbas, District Alwar.
4. Ram Prakash S/o Lichhman Ram, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Khangta, Pichkiya Ka Bas, Jodhpur.
5. Gopal Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
45, Meghwalon Ka Bas, Kharda Randhir, Jodhpur.
6. Hanuman Ram S/o Hajari Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Thoriyo Ka Bas, Salwa Kallan, District Jodhpur.
7. Suman Kumari Meena D/o Birdi Chand W/o Vimal Kumar
Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Balawas, Post Hapawas,
District Dausa.
8. Bhanwari Sisodiya D/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Nimbo Ka Talab, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
9. Sanjay Soni S/o Mishri Lal Soni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
116, Sunaro Ka Bas, Bisanwas, Lohawat, District Jodhpur.
10. Rajesh Nayak S/o Tejpal Nayak, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Nichla Fala, Adiwali, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur.
11. Antima Sharma D/o Hoti Lal Sharma W/o Kedar Nath
Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Vpo Aou, Deeg,
District Bharatpur.
12. Ramswaroop Meena S/o Badri Lal Meena, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Village Kalakhera, Bohat, District Baran.
13. Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Girraj Prasad Gurjar, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Moradi, Post Pratappura,
Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa.
14. Madan Lal Jat S/o Kishor Jat, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village Amarpura Jageer, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District
Udaipur.
15. Mahendra Kumar Patidar S/o Hirji Patidar, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Awalpura, District Banswara.
16. Kailash Meena S/o Lala Ram Meena, Aged About 32
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 07:46:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38532] (2 of 5) [CW-15283/2025]
Years, R/o Jaisinghpura Post Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
17. Beeram Chand Bheel S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Devari Chanchal, Post Churella, Tehsil
Aklera, District Jhalawar.
18. Ramniwas Regar S/o Chhagan Lal Regar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Khajuriakhera, Post Bihara, Tehsil Jahajpur,
District Bhilwara.
19. Dilip Singh Meena S/o Sita Ram Meena, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Pooneta, Post Mamdoli, Tehsil Bonli,
District Sawai Madhopur.
20. Ram Karan Bairwa S/o Ruga Lal Bairwa, Aged About 53
Years, R/o Saroli, Post Juniya, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk.
21. Prem Raj Meena S/o Buddhu Meena, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 129, Meena Basti Manch, Tehsil Ata, District
Karauli.
22. Jitendra Meena S/o Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Borkhera, Post Moran, Borkhera,
Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur.
23. Gokul Chand Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkaran Gurjar, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Village Turana, Post Nayabass, Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar.
24. Pappu Ram S/o Chhoga Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Ward
No. 2, Meghwalon Ka Bass, Sandeela, Tehsil Jayal, District
Nagaur.
25. Shyam Lal S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Chouhan Niwas, Ward No. 24, Rawatbhata Bazar,
Chittorgarh.
26. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shambu Dayal, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Malah, District Bharatpur.
27. Bhagchand Meena S/o Nanag Ram Meena, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Manya Ka Bas, Roneeja Than, Alwar.
28. Shanker Lal Regar S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, District Rajsamand.
29. Padmanathan S/o Kanniappo, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Ram Nagar, Zawar Mines, Girwa, District Udaipur.
30. Vinod Kumar Khichar S/o Chuna Ram Khichar, Aged About
48 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur.
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 07:46:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38532] (3 of 5) [CW-15283/2025]
31. Brajesh Kumar S/o Kaluva Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Ranota, Arwa, District Alwar.
32. Samdar Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Bichla Bass, Ward No. 4, Kathoti, District Nagaur.
33. Rekha W/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Taliya
Nausar, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.
34. Hemant S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Nangal Sherpur, Post Nangal Pahadi, District Karauli.
35. Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Laddulal Yadav, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Khyawada, District Kota.
----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,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mandore, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bapini, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Lohawat, District
Jodhpur (Now Phalodi), Rajasthan.
8. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ghantiyali, District
Jodhpur (Now Phalodi), Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
[2025:RJ-JD:38532] (4 of 5) [CW-15283/2025]
28/08/2025
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.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that
qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:38532] (5 of 5) [CW-15283/2025]
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.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/281-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
