Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harsh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38514) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38514]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16265/2025
1. Harsh Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar Jagga, Aged About 40
Years, R/o 27-Iiird Block, 16, Udaram Chowk, Purani
Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Saroj Meena D/o Shyam Lal Meena, W/o Kapil Dev
Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dhani Shyola Meena Ki,
Vpo Mandholi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
3. Karamjeet Kaur D/o Gurmel Singh W/o Preetpal Singh,
Aged About 39 Years, R/o 22 Amp (Singhpura), Post And
Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
4. Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Ghisa Ram Yadav, Aged About
45 Years, R/o Ward No.6, Village 1-H Bada, Post Maderan,
District Sri Ganganagar.
5. Ramandeep Dhillo (Kour) D/o Jasaveendr Singh Dhillo W/
o Jagveer Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 50F,
Roopnagar, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar.
6. Krishan Lal S/o Rampratap, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Ward No.11, Chak 22, As(B), 6 Dd, Tehsil Gharsana,
District Sri Ganganagar.
7. Harjinder Pal S/o Laxman Das, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ward No.04, Near Gurdwara, 6-H, Post Patroda, District
Sri Ganganagar.
8. Jagseer Singh S/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village 7 S, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar.
9. Raj Kumari D/o Jasu Ram W/o Govind Ram, Aged About
43 Years, R/o Ward No.10, Chak 3-Kd(A), Tehsil
Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.
10. Mahendra Pal Tarar S/o Amichand Tarar, Aged About 46
Years, R/o 46 Rb-B, Rajpura, Via Gajsinghpur, Post And
Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
11. Priyanka Singaria D/o Mohanlal Singaria W/o Vikas
Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No.35, Dhanka
Mohalla, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
12. Pawanveer Kaur D/o Balveer Singh W/o Amritpal Singh,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No.6, Chak 9 Psd (B),
Tehsil Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38514] (2 of 4) [CW-16265/2025]
13. Laxmi Kumari D/o Gurucharan Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Ward No.1, 29 K.y.d., Post 3 P.w.m., Tehsil
Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
14. Balram S/o Kashiram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward
No.09, Vpo Banwali, 4 Bnw, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District
Sri Ganganagar.
15. Sunil Kumar S/o Omprakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Ward No.03, 5 K.l.d., Post Kundal, 10 K.l.d., Tehsil
Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
----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,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bajju Khalsa,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khajuwala, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:38514] (3 of 4) [CW-16265/2025]
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
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/112-
[2025:RJ-JD:38514] (4 of 4) [CW-16265/2025]
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
