0

Maheshwari Public School has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

Blog, blog

Case Title: MAHESHWARI PUBLICE SCHOOL VS RAN NON GOV EDUCATION TRI ORS

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18478/2011

Decided on: 03/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

Present petition arises out of the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 01/2005, by which the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) has been allowed and her termination order dated 27.9.2004 has been quashed and the petitioner Institution has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits.

That respondent no.2 was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher in Maths on 4.4.1996 w.e.f. 2.4.1996 by the petitioner Institution and she was removed from service vide order dated 27.9.2004 and six months salary of Rs. 62,394/- was paid to her in lieu of six months notice. (3) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order.

The respondent was in the habit of beating students and she was warned on number of occasions, but her behaviour did not change and her such act affected the reputation of the school, hence the school management took the decision to remove her from service after making payment of six months salary in lieu of the notice.

The respondent submitted an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that she was removed from service in violation of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short “Rules of 1993”). It was pleaded before the Tribunal that without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, she was removed from service with various allegations of beating students of her class. It was pleaded that her removal order was stigmatic and without seeking consent or approval of the Director of Education the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 was passed. It was also pleaded that full salary of six months was not paid to her and the impugned order was passed against the mandatory provisions of law.

 

Judgement:

Mere sending of intimation/information is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of the above provisions. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order dated 27.9.2004.

Since this court is of the view that the termination order of the respondent is not passed as per the mandate of above provisions, the court is not deciding the other objections and issues raised by either of the parties.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

0

The partition of the property in-dispute took place much earlier to writing down of the details of the property in the Bahi: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

Blog, blog ,

Case Title: Leela Devi & Ors. versus  Amar Chand & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6969/2006

Decided on: 02/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Facts of the case:

This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned trial court whereby the documents submitted by the respondent no.1 have been permitted to be taken on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction on 19.10.2005 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was subsequently transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara.

The defendant respondent no.1 filed a written statement to the suit, wherein it was submitted that on account of a family settlement arrived between the family members, the property in- dispute came into ownership and possession of the answering defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit on 26.07.2006. The cross-examination on affidavit was started and during the same, the respondent no.1 defendant submitted a family settlement dated 06.09.1977. The petitioner-plaintiff took an objection upon the filing of the family settlement alleging that the same was not a family settlement but a partition-deed.

It was further contended that since the document in-question being a partition-deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, cannot be on record to be adduced as evidence. It was further contended that the document in-question was not a family settlement but a partition-deed because the contents of it clearly shows the transfer of land from one person to the other and the other person getting right, title and interest in such property and, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a family settlement but a sale-deed. It has also been contended that the property in-dispute is a self-acquired property and not a joint family property and, thus, in such circumstances the property in-dispute could be transferred only by way of a partition-deed and not by any other mode.

The document in-question being a family settlement does not require registration and, thus, can be taken into evidence. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 preferred present writ petition.

 

 

Judgement:

It is an admitted position that an oral arrangement between the family members was entered into a Bahi with the title “Dastavej Baabat Pariwarik Samjhota”. The parties have antecedent title/claim & interest in the property, which is acknowledged in this settlement.

The family arrangement is voluntary. The arrangement has apparently been arrived at between the members of a family descending from a common ancestor and are near relatives who were looking forward to sink their differences, settle and resolve their disputes to enjoy complete harmony and goodwill in the family.

The Bahi entry was to protect the family unity and solidarity while equitably dividing the family property. This Court finds that the equitable principles like family settlement ought to be relied upon in resolving such disputes and cannot be subjected to rigors of technicalities in law.

The view taken by the learned trial court as the learned trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the document in dispute dated 06.09.1977 was admissible in evidence. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

0

The insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

blog, Blog

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Samya, Sinty & Anr.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46/2002

Decided on: 01/05/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Facts of the case:

On 19.09.1996 at about 2.15 p.m. when Suraj Karan @ Suraj Mal Mali was on his way to duty to the mill of his employer and reached near the Vivekanand School, he was hit by a speeding bus as a result of which he got injured. He was immediately taken to the hospital but he died within a short time. The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application for compensation under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the act”). The appellant insurance company filed the written statement with a specific plea that the driver was holding the licence for driving the H.G.V. (Heavy Goods Vehicle) only where as he was driving a bus which was a Heavy Passenger Vehicle.

The owner has pleaded existence of insurance policy of the vehicle involved and fixing of liability upon the insurance company. Whereas the insurance company has denied manner of the accident, negligent driving by the bus driver and also taken a plea about non-existence of valid driving licence of the bus driver.

The driver of the offending vehicle was issued driving licence prior to the amendment made in the act by Act 54 of 1994.

Judgement:

The direction of the impugned judgment directing only the insurance company to pay the compensation is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 16.07.2001 is modified to the extent that appellant insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent.

There being violation of specified condition, the insurer is held liable to pay the compensation.

The tribunal ought not to have absolved the owner of the tribunal because he was guilty of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Since, the involved vehicle was insured therefore, both the vehicle owner and the insurance company were liable for joint and several liability to pay the compensation.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

0

Petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefit of pay scale: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

blog, Blog ,

Case Title: Jota Ram versus State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case No:  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17915/2019
Decided on: 24/05/2023
Coram: JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Facts of the case:

The petitioner who was appointed on the post of Patwari as a Scheduled Tribe candidate by way of order dated 07.10.1993, joined the services on 08.10.1993.

During his tenure as a Patwari, some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and pending such proceedings, his case for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committees for years 1999-2000 and onwards but the result was kept in sealed cover.

Thereafter a punishment order came to be passed on 22.08.2008.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s predicament that after passing of the penalty order dated 22.08.2008, though the petitioner had been pursuing the respondents to open the sealed envelope and give him promotion, but for six years the respondents did not pay any heed and promoted him as late as on 14.10.2014, he contended that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of delay on the part of respondents. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have wrongly placed the petitioner along with the ILRs who were promoted against the vacancies of year 2014-2015.

His Second argument has been that since the basic order of promotion has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 14.10.2014, considering his promotion to be from 2008-2009, the Collector by way of order impugned dated 06.05.2015, could not have changed it to the vacancy year 2014- 2015.

Arguments of the Respondent:

Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the respondents have committed no error of law in reckoning petitioner’s seniority with effect from 2014-2015.

 In support of his contention aforesaid, he relied upon Rule 171-A(2) of the Rules of 1957 and submitted that the seniority of the Inspector Land Records is required to be reckoned from the date of continuous officiation on the post of Inspector Land Records. He submitted that the petitioner can be considered as Inspector Land Records, only when he started officiating or working as Inspector Land Records and hence, the petitioner cannot be given seniority from the year 2008-2009, particularly when he did not work as Inspector Land Records prior to 06.05.2015.

Judgement:

After the correction of the seniority list, the petitioner shall be conferred all consequential benefits, including promotion to the next post.

Review DPC for considering petitioner’s case be convened within a period of 3 months from today and order of promotion (if the petitioner is found eligible and suitable) be passed by 30th September, 2023. The petitioner shall be entitled for actual benefit of pay scale etc. with effect from the date of the order or 30.09.2023, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall be given notional benefit from the date persons junior to him have been promoted upto 30th September, 2023/actual date of promotion.

 Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

 

0

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Former RPF Constable’s Plea Against Termination, Says No Cause Of Action In Rajasthan

blog, Blog ,

Case Title: Norat Rana v. Union of India & 2 Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13031/2017
Decided on: 26/04/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

The petitioner was terminated from the post of Constable under Rule 57.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules 1987) while on probation period vide impugned order dated November 15, 2016, passed by Senior Commanding Officer, 12th BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli (Maharashtra).

The petitioner approached the appellate authority challenging the impugned order which was rejected by the DIG/R&T, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi vide communication dated April 27, 2017. Thus, the petitioner assailed both the orders before the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharged without holding a proper inquiry and without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge. However, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 to file Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority.

It was further submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the authorities in Maharashtra and no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in Rajasthan, hence the Rajasthan High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present writ petition.

It was argued that an employee on probation period does not have right to continue the job and his services can be terminated during the period of probation.

“When the Appellate Authority is of the view that appeal is not maintainable, then how Revision Petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not been treated as an enrolled member of the Force. In view of the above discussion, this court finds no force in the argument of the counsel for respondent that this writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing Revision Petition under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987,” said the court.

Judgement:

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Constable of Railway Protection Force against his termination order.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said the petitioner responded to notice from Thakurli (Maharashtra) and the disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him at Thakurli and finally the impugned order was also passed and served upon him at Thakurli.

However, the court dismissed the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum as may be available to him under the law.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

1 2