[2025:RJ-JP:38717] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13294/2025 Gopi Ram Yadav S/o Shri Sukhram, Aged About 79 Years, R/o Village And Post Khapria, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Jalsu District Jaipur, Retired On 30.06.2006 From The Post of Panchayat Extension Officer At Panchayat Samity Jhontwara District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur. 3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samity Jhontwara District Jaipur. 4. Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 20/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 3.4.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3141/2015 (Jagdish Chandra Khatik & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) which were decided in light of the judgment dated 29.7.2009 rendered in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.773/2009). [2025:RJ-JP:38717] (2 of 3) [CW-13294/2025] 2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submitted that he would be satisfied if: the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.3-Development Officer, Panchayat Samity Jhontwara District Jaipur encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the same in a time-bound manner in the light of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Bhanoda (Supra). 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. 4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent No. 3 for ventilating their grievances along with a copy of this order. Upon such representation being received, the respondent No. 3 shall objectively consider and decide the same in light of ratio of the judgment rendered by this Court in Jagdish Bhanoda (Supra) by a reasoned speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to required relief, the same shall be granted to him immediately. 6. If after the disposal of the representation, any of the petitioner’s grievances still survive, he will be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy. 7. No order as to costs. 8. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, [2025:RJ-JP:38717] (3 of 3) [CW-13294/2025] the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /1