Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Kumar Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35277) on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35277]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15061/2025
1. Mahendra Kumar Khatik S/o Manohar Lal Khatik, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Khatik Mohalla, Deoriya, Post
Deoriya, Tehsil Raipur, District Bhilwara.
2. Manju Gayari D/o Vishnu Gayari, Aged About 30 Years, R/
o Samadhi Road, Kothariya, Tehsil Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand. Presently Residing At 1/8, Mukhy Ganv,
Gunjol, District Rajsamand.
3. Heera Lal Meena S/o Tejaji Meena, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o 130, Kali Vali, Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
4. Poker Ram Meghwal S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 423, Meghwalo Ka Bas, Desuri, District Pali.
5. Kusum Paliwal D/o Vishnu Dutt Paliwal, W/o Kapil Paliwal,
Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vpo Dhanyalaa, Tehsil And
District Rajsamand.
6. Deepika Paliwal D/o Devkinandan Paliwal, W/o Devendra
Paliwal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Santoshi Nagar,
Kankroli, District Rajsamand.
7. Rajkamal Lohar S/o Bheru Lal Lohar, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Manak Chowk, Gilund, Tehsil Railmagra,
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 Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rajsamand,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:06:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35277] (2 of 3) [CW-15061/2025]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:35277] (3 of 3) [CW-15061/2025]
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/172-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
