Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Prahlad Ram Hardu vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 14 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 14 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prahlad Ram Hardu vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:20770]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8940/2025

1.       Prahlad Ram Hardu S/o Mohan Lal Hardu, Aged About 45
         Years, R/o Vpo Gingala, Tehsil Osia, District Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan (Clis).
2.       Choga Ram S/o Sahi Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo
         Hanuman Sagar Gingala, Tehsil Osia, District Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan (Clis).
3.       Bhura Ram Kukna S/o Durga Ram Kukna, Aged About 45
         Years, R/o Kukna Ke Dhani Newra, Tehsil Osia, District
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Blis).
4.       Karna Ram S/o Vishna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
         Vpo Newra, Tehsil Osia, District Jodhpur, R/o Kukna Ke
         Dhani Newra, Tehsil Osia, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
         (Blis).
5.       Sumer Dhandhu S/o Teema Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
         R/o Vpo Chapasani Charnan, Tehsil Tinwari, District
         Jodhpur, (Clis).
6.       Kirta Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Teja Ram Choudhary, Aged
         About 49 Years, R/o Siyagon Ki Dhaniya, Khudiyala, Tehsil
         Tinwari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Blis).
7.       Tejpal Barala S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
         Shri Ram Computer New Bus Stand, Tehsil Roopangarh,
         District Ajmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
8.       Amit Kumar Suwalka S/o Basant Kumar, Aged About 35
         Years, R/o Vpo Deogoan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
9.       Krishna Sharma W/o Bal Kishan Sharma, Aged About 48
         Years,      R/o   Brahmano          Ka      Mohalla,      District   Ajmer,
         Rajasthan (Clis).
10.      Satya Narayan Jat S/o Gopal Lal Jat, Aged About 43
         Years, R/o Vpo Goojarwara, District Ajmer, Rajasthan
         (Clis).
11.      Manoj Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 45 Years,
         R/o    Vpo    Bagar,      Tehsil     Chirawa,        District   Jhunjhunu,
         Rajasthan (Clis).
12.      Mukesh Kumar S/o Sita Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
         Ajari Kalan, District Jhunjhun, Rajasthan (Clis).
13.      Chhutttan Lal Meena S/o Bhouree Lal Meena, Aged About


                       (Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:51 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:20770]                     (2 of 4)                         [CW-8940/2025]


         42 Years, R/o Vpo Kalakho Ambari, Tehsil Sikarai, District
         Dausa, Rajasthan (Clis).
14.      Navin Bakliwal S/o Paras Mal Bakliwal, Aged About 41
         Years,      R/o   Vpo      Sadar         Bazar      Roopangarh,      Tehsil
         Roopangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
15.      Jainarayan Kumawat S/o Nand Lal Kumawat, Aged About
         37 Years, R/o Vpo Kund Ke Pass, Kumawat Mandir Ke
         Piche Roopangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan (Blis).
16.      Nand Kishor Verma S/o Peeklal Verma, Aged About 47
         Years, R/o Tali Mohalla Roopangarh, Tehsil Kapangarh,
         District Ajmer, Rajasthan (Clis).
17.      Pramod Kanwar D/o Pratap Singh Rathore, Aged About 38
         Years, R/o Vpo Bhadun, Tehsil Roopangarh, District Ajmer,
         Rajasthan (Blis).
18.      Prem Devi D/o Shiv Pal W/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 43
         Years, R/o Village Abhawas, Block Khandela, District
         Sikar, Rajasthan (Dlis).
19.      Devi Singh Rawat S/o Moti Singh, Aged About 39 Years,
         R/o Village Bichhudara, Post Mogar, Tehsil Badnor, District
         Beawar, Rajasthan (Clis).
20.      Mal Singh S/o Pahad Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
         Village Bichhudara, Post Mogar, Tehsil Badnor, District
         Beawar, Rajasthan (Clis).
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       The    Deputy      Secretary,         Department          Of   Elementary
         Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
3.       The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
         (Raj.).
4.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Jodhpur (Raj.).
5.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Ajmer (Raj.).
6.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary

                       (Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:51 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:20770]                    (3 of 4)                        [CW-8940/2025]


         Education, Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
7.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Dausa (Raj.).
8.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Sikar (Raj.).
9.       The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary
         Education, Beawar (Raj.).
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

01/05/2025

1. Grievance of the petitioners herein, arises out of the

inaction/non-consideration on the part of the respondents to

consider their claim of re-fixation of their monthly pay at the rate

of Rs.16,900/- as against Rs.10,400/- which is being currently

paid, notwithstanding that the Director, Elementary Education,

Rajasthan vide a letter dated 24.04.2023 recommended their case

favourably to Deputy Secretary (Admn.), Department of

Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan.

2. They also rely a judgment rendered by this Court in case of

Jassa Ram Choudhary and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17901/2023) decided on

09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly situated counterparts

have been accorded benefit. They claim that despite their passing

the requisite qualification of B.L.I.S., C.L.I.S & D.L.I.S., they are

not being considered eligible for appointment as Panchayat

[2025:RJ-JD:20770] (4 of 4) [CW-8940/2025]

Teachers in the Elementary Education Department in the higher

pay bracket as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners also submitted

representations (Annexure-7) before the competent authority for

redressal thereof, which have remained pending till date without

being taken up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the

competent authority be directed to decide the same by passing

appropriate administrative orders expeditiously.

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. The

respondent competent authority is directed to decide the pending

representations of the petitioners (Annexure-7) by passing an

appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J S-4-SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter