Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Digpal Singh Shaktawat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29529) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29529]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10105/2025
1. Digpal Singh Shaktawat S/o Tej Singh Shaktawat, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Main Road, Badgaon, Vallabhnagar,
District Udaipur.
2. Manohar Lal Gurjar S/o Govardhan Lal Gurjar, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Gurjar Mohalla, Chawandiya,
District Bhilwara.
----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 Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Mavli, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhinder, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/07/2025
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 on the post of LDC pursuant to
advertisement of the year 2013.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:29529] (2 of 2) [CW-10105/2025]
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
46-Nitin/c-11/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
