Raj Kumar v. Hrtc
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged his termination as a one-year employee. The court held the petition infructuous as he was paid one month salary in lieu of notice.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP(T) No.8445 of 2008. Decided on: 20.12.2010. Raj Kumar. ……….Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner. : Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral)
Petitioner was engaged vide Annexure A-4 for a period of one year. His services have been dispensed with by paying him salary of one month in lieu of the notice, amounting to Rs. 4399/-. Since, the petitioner has been paid one month salary and his appointment was for one year, the present petition is rendered infructuous. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge
December 20, 2010. (krt)
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Raj Kumar
- respondent
Himachal Road Transport Corpn.
Coram
Rajiv Sharma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- CWPOA/8445/2008
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court