Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sangeeta Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35261) on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35261]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15258/2025
1. Sangeeta Parmar D/o Kishan Lal Parmar, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Nalfala, Damri, Tehsil And District Dungarpur.
2. Kan Singh Rajput S/o Chawand Singh Rajput, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Borda, District Bhilwara.
3. Mahesh Chandra Rebari S/o Udaji Rebari, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Limborchhoti, Semalia Pandya, Tehsil Sagwara,
District Dungarpur.
4. Lokesh Jain S/o Khushi Lal Jain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Bhehana, District Dungarpur.
5. Chandra Shekhar Purohit S/o Vasudev Purohit, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o Trivedi Fala, Vpo Jethana, Bhiluda,
District Dungarpur.
6. Rahul Bhatt S/o Pradeep Kumar Bhatt, Aged About 41
Years, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Ward No. 7, Jolana,
Post Garhi, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
----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,
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Chikhali, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
7. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sagwarar, District
Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
8. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Galiyakot, District
Dungarpura, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:06:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35261] (2 of 3) [CW-15258/2025]
----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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:35261] (3 of 3) [CW-15258/2025]
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/224-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
