Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35274) on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35274]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15225/2025
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Om Prakash Gusai, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Gushaiyo Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 07, Gandheli, Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh.
2. Sapna Kumari D/o Shubhash Chandra W/o Ummed Singh,
Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Hamiri Kalan, Tehsil Malsisar,
District.
3. Mahendra Singh Sarangdevot S/o Udai Singh, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Asawara, Tehsil Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur.
4. Mahendra Kumar Nayak S/o Harish Chandra Nayak, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Village Adiwali, Basi, Fala, Tehsil
Kherwara, District Udaipur.
5. Anita Kumari D/o Bahadur Singh W/o Angareg Mev, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o A-82, Basant Vihar, District Jhunjhunu.
6. Prathvi Raj Jat S/o Lobh Chand Jat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Village Anoppura, Tehsil Bhupalsagar, District Chittorgarh.
7. Madhav Das Vairagi S/o Satyanarayan Vairagi, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Naiyon Ka Mohalla, Babrana, Tehsil Bhupalsagar,
District Chittorgarh.
8. Sarita D/o Ramnaryan W/o Shital Bishnoi, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Village 1 Skm-B, Tehsil Gharsana,
District Sri Ganganagar.
9. Tulsi Kumari D/o Narayan Ram W/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village Sujanpura, Padma Ka Bas, Kashi Ka Bas,
District Sikar.
10. Bhaga Bharti S/o Rana Bharti, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Loteshwar, Kesoori, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.
11. Ram Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo
Bhawatra, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.
12. Jailalita D/o Aasha Ram W/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Village Fatehsari, Deogaon, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu.
13. Padma Ram Siyol S/o Ganga Ram Siyol, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Shobhala, Jaitmal, Siyagon Ki Dhani, Sindhari, District
Barmer.
14. Kishori Lal Luhar S/o Amar Lal Luhar, Aged About 49 Years, R/
o Rao Mohalla, Bhawanipura, Tehsil Chhipa Barod, District
Baran.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:06:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35274] (2 of 3) [CW-15225/2025]
15. Vinod Kumar S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ramsiya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur.
16. Shankar Lal S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village
Karola, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.
17. Suman Kumari Bajiya D/o Jhabar Mal Bajiya, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Dhani Choliywali, Ganipura, Post Malikpur, Tehsil
Khandela, District Sikar.
18. Mana Ram Vishnoi S/o Ridmal Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Ramnagar, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.
----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, Jalore,
Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chitalwana, District
Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gurjar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
08/08/2025
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
[2025:RJ-JD:35274] (3 of 3) [CW-15225/2025]
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/201-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
