Disposed

Mahaveer Prasad v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Rajasthan HC22 Nov 2017CW/21327/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought benefit entitlement resolution. Court dismissed appeal on merits due to coordinate bench resolution, directing petitioner to submit representation with certified copy of Jagdish Bhanoda v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 773/2009) for expedited decided within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed with direction to address representation for determination within eight weeks.

Mahaveer Prasad Vs State Rural Develp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21327 / 2017

¶3

Mahaveer Prasad, Son of Shri Chhotu Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident of Village Gothra Tagalan, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar, At Present Resident At Near Dev Gas Godown, Ward No. 23, New Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu, District Churu (Raj.)

¶8

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Poonia & Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

22/11/2017

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 773/2009 , decided on 29^th July, 2009.

¶15

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-21327/2017]

¶18

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda (supra).

¶19

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶20

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶21

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶22

SS/170

Mahaveer Prasad v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Prasad v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Ballabh Gupta Vs Union of India

Rajesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan Trough P.P.

R S R T C Vs Sita Ram and Ors.

Ritu Sodhi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Lal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sita and Anr. Vs Ishwari Devi Aaswani and Ors.