Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2846)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4777 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2846) on 16 January, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:2846]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 711/2025

Ghanshyam S/o Shri Hansraj, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of
-Ward No.08, Chak 75 Rd (Po Madhu Nagar), Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary , Rural
         Development             And       Panchayati           Raj      Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Chief      Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh,
         District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3.       Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Rawatsar,
         District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manish Patel.
For Respondent(s)            :



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

16/01/2025

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 petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner 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 petitioner also relies on

order/judgment in Nand Kishore Sharma & Ors. v. The State

[2025:RJ-JD:2846] (2 of 2) [CW-711/2025]

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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

petitioner 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.

(ARUN MONGA),J 12-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)