Dismissed

Om Prakash Jangu v. the R N G E I T Jaipur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 May 2011CW/3424/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging an order granting subsistence allowance. The court held the petitions were infructuous following a final penalty imposed on the employee by the Education Tribunal and the subsequent dismissal of the employee's appeal against that penalty.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous.

Om Prakash Jangu Vs the R N G E I T Jaipur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

CW-9850/05.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

Swami Keshwanand M.G.V. Vs. The R.N.G.E.I.T. & Ors.

¶5

(SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9850/05)

¶6

Om Prakash Jangu Vs. The R.N.G.E.I.T. & Ors.

¶7

(SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3424/06)

¶8

Date of Order : 3^rd May, 2011.

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

¶11

Mr. V.S. Nain for the petitioner-employee. Mr. Inderjeet Singh for respondent-RNGEIT.

¶12

Both these writ petitions have been filed

¶13

against the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal dated 17^th September, 2005 disposing of application NO. 64/04. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 7^th November, 2000 and charge-sheet was also served upon him dated 5^th of March, 2001. At this stage when the petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance to which he was entitled for under the law, he approached the Educational Tribunal by filing an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties disposed of the application with the

¶14

CW-9850/05.

¶15

¶16

direction that petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance @ 75% and also of regular increments while computing subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner while under suspension after expiry of six months.

¶17

It appears that both the contesting parties to the dispute before the Tribunal were not satisfied and cross writ petitions have been filed on various grounds assailing the order of the Tribunal.

¶18

It has come on the record that in a disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner, penalty has been finally inflicted upon him vide order dated 10^th of December, 2005, after he was held guilty and that has been separately assailed initially before the Education Tribunal. However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 3^rd March, 2008 which has been assailed by the employee by filing SBCWP No. 3731/08 which is pending in this court.

¶19

Both the counsel have assailed the order of the Educational Tribunal dated 17^th September, 2005 regarding grant of subsistence allowance admissible under law. But in view of the final penalty being inflicted upon the petitioner employee and taking into account these change in circumstances both the

¶20

CW-9850/05.

¶21

¶22

writ petitions have become infructuous. However, the parties are at liberty to raise their objections regarding subsistence allowance which the employees during the suspension was entitled for in the pending proceedings in SBCWP No. 3731/08.

¶23

With this liberty being granted to the parties, the present writ petitions become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed.

¶24

( AJAY RASTOGI ) J.

¶25

MRG.

Om Prakash Jangu v. the R N G E I T Jaipur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Jangu v. the R N G E I T Jaipur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Charan Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Lekhraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal Vs State and Ors.

Chetan Singh Chouhan Vs Choudhary Charan Singh Nationa

Arun Kumar Kothari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

R K Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.