Disposed

Smt Durgesh Kanwar Anr. v. State Women and Child Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2012CW/6535/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders discontinuing services pending enquiry on grounds of negligence in meal distribution, the Court declined to interfere but directed the State to complete the enquiry within two months and pay arrears of honorarium within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directions to complete enquiry within two months and pay arrears of honorarium within one month; original orders not interfered with.

Smt Durgesh Kanwar Anr. Vs State Women and Child Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

SBCWP NO.6535/2012 (Durgesh Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6535/2012 (Durgesh Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order : 08^th May, 2012

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶7

Mr.Rishi Pal Singh Rathore, for the petitioners.

¶8

By the court:

¶9

By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to orders at Annex.6 and 7 dated 11.04.2012.

¶10

It is stated that petitioners have been made victim of arbitrary action by which their services have been discontinued pending enquiry. The petitioners are held negligent in distribution of meal. On the earlier occasion also, petitioners were suspended but they were reinstated as allegation of distribution of meal causing death of a child was investigated and therein, petitioners were not held responsible. They are again being discontinued due to political reasons, thus impugned orders may be set aside. In the alternative, respondents be directed to expedite the enquiry so that truth may come before them. In the meanwhile, petitioners may be paid salary for the period, for which they

¶11

SBCWP NO.6535/2012 (Durgesh Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶12

¶13

worked after reinstatement on the earlier occasion.

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.

¶15

Looking to the contents of order at Annex.6 and 7, I am not inclined to interfere in those order, however, respondents are directed to complete the enquiry at the earliest and if possible then within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶16

In the meanwhile, if the petitioners have not been paid salary for the period they have worked after reinstatement on the earlier occasion, the respondents are expected for payment of arrears of honorarium to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition so as the stay application are disposed of.

¶18

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶19

S/No.8 preety, Jr.P.A.

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the

¶21

SBCWP NO.6535/2012 (Durgesh Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶22

¶23

judgment/order being emailed.

¶24

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Smt Durgesh Kanwar Anr. v. State Women and Child Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Durgesh Kanwar Anr. v. State Women and Child Ors.

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

Navd Miyan and Ors. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Dixit and Ors. Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Chandra Prakash Sharma Ors. Vs State Medical Education Depors

Bhagirath Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gopal Lal Gupta Vs State Power Departmentors

Daulat Singh Rajput and Anr. Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.