Disposed

Dr. Seema Jaiswal v. Ayush And Health Sciences University

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2018WPS/5137/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of an application to vacate a stay. The court held that since the interim stay was withdrawn, no cause for reciting the stay order survived. However, the court directed respondents to allow the petitioner to join service with consequential benefits if she hadn't yet done so, noting she failed to submit a written representation regarding her pay scale. The cost claim was dismiss

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be allowed to join service with consequential benefits if not already joined; cost claim dismissed; I.A. No. 2 and writ petition disposed of.

Dr. Seema Jaiswal Vs Ayush And Health Sciences… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Reserved on 26/7/2018

¶5

Delivered on 3/8/2018

¶6

WPS No. 5137 of 2017

¶7

Dr. Seema Jaiswal W/o Shri Shesh Jaiswal, Aged About 49 Years Senior Medical Officer, R/o Opposite Primary School, Brij Vihar Colony, Mangla, Bilaspur, CG

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ayush And Health Sciences University Through Its Registrar, G. E. Road, Amanaka, Raipur CG

¶11

Central Council Of Homeopathy, Through Its Registrar Cum Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Avum Homeopathic Anusandhan Bhawan, 61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D - Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi, 1100058, [email protected], District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶12

C. L. Chouksey Memorial Homeopathic Medical College, Hospital And Research Centre, Through Managing Director, Lal Khadan, Masturi Road, Bilaspur Chhattigarh 495004

¶13

Dr. Satyajeet Thakur, Principal, C. L. Chouksey Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, Hospital And Research Centre, Lal Khadan, Masturi Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495004

¶14

Mrs. Soma Bhatacharya, Administrative Officer, C. L. Chouksey Memorial Homeopathic Medical College, Hospital And Research Centre. Lal Khadan, Masturi Road, Bilaspur CG. 495004

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For petitioner	Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Adv.
For R-1	Mr. N.K. Vyas, Adv.
For R-2	None.
For R-3, 4, 5	Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Adv.

¶17

CAV ORDER Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta

¶18

By this order, I.A. No. 2 application for vacating the order of stay dated 27-9-2017 and dismissal of writ petition is being disposed of.

¶19

Counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 argued that the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 5-9-2017 has been withdrawn by order Annexure R-3/1 dated 12-12-2017, thus no cause of action survives for adjudication. Thus, interim order be vacated and this writ petition may also be dismissed.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has claimed

¶21

¶22

the relief for grant of prescribed pay scale, EPF amount, arrears of an annual increment, etc. The relief clause- II, III and IV of para 10 still survive, thus I.A. No. 2 may be dismissed.

¶23

By order dated 25-6-2018, this Court has given finding that there is no necessity of stay of the effect and operation of Annexure P- 1 because Annexure P-1 has been withdrawn by order Annexure R-3/1. Thus, relief of Clause 10(I) does not survive as Annexure P-1 has been withdrawn.

¶24

The petitioner has also claimed in Clause 10(II) to direct the respondents to allow her to join service along with consequential benefits including grant of pay scale as prescribed by the respondent/ University from the initial date of appointment.

¶25

The petitioner has also claimed in Clause 10(III) that exemplary cost may be imposed upon respondent No. 4 and 5 for torturing, exploiting, etc.

¶26

The petitioner failed to show that she had given the representation in writing to the competent authority regarding grant of pay scale as prescribed by the respondent University from initial date of her appointment.

¶27

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed that if the petitioner has not joined then allow her to join the service and give her consequential benefits as per law. The petitioner has liberty to submit representation in writing before competent authority regarding the grant of pay scale as allegedly prescribed by the respondent University from the initial date of her appointment. This Court is not inclined to impose any cost upon respondents no. 4 and 5.

¶28

Consequently, I.A. No. 2 as well as the instant writ petition are disposed of.

¶29

Sd/(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶30

pathak

¶31

Dr. Seema Jaiswal v. Ayush And Health Sciences University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Seema Jaiswal v. Ayush And Health Sciences University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Pathak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Miss Alice Stella Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devnarayan Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Suniti Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sharad Kumar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chandramani Paikra and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others