HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10833/2024 1. Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Bansi Lal Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Baisar, Tehsil Khanpur, Dist Jhalawar, Raj. 2. Manoj Kumar Maurya S/o Shri Basanti Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Koli Mohalla, Jhalawar Road, Khanpur,dist. Jhalawar, Raj. 3. Suresh Kumar Suman S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Suman, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 278 Devnarayan Mohalla, Khanpur, Tehsil Khanpur, Dist. Jhalawar, Raj. 4. Pramod Kumar Sain S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Sain, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village - Golana, Tehsil - Khanpur, Dist. - Jhalawar, Raj. 5. Sunita Singhal S/o Shri Govind Prasad Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o - Kaiser Vihar Colony, Khanpur, Dist. - Jhalawar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Commissioner (Second), E.g.s. Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The District Collector Cum District Project Coordinator, Mgnrega Scheme, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. 4. The Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional District Project Coordinator, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. 5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Jhajharia (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 20/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is identical to S.B Civil Writ Petition No.10695/2018 (Gopiram Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of (2 of 2) [CW-10833/2024] Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 16.05.2018 and that similar relief be granted to the petitioners also. 2. In the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:- “It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State- respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application. 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 ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed of.” 3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra). 4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J 100-Arun/-