Allowed

Miss Teena Mahawar v. C S Rajan and Others

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2013CCP/1209/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This consolidated warrant and writ petition involved disputes regarding the petitioner's posting and designation. The Court found the respondents in contempt for inaction on attendance. It directed the payment of salary from June 1, 2012 to January 11, 2013 and disposed of the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay salary from 01.06.2012 to 11.01.2013 within two weeks.

Miss Teena Mahawar Vs C S Rajan and Others — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1209/2012 (Miss Teena Mahawar Vs. Shri C.S.Rajan & Ors.) along with one other.

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1209/2012

¶5

(Miss Teena Mahawar Vs. Shri C.S.Rajan & Ors.)

¶6

AND

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6673/2012

¶8

(Miss Teena Mahawar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶9

Date of Order :: 04^th March, 2013

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶11

Mr.Hanuman Choudhary, for the petitioner/s. Mr.S.N.Kumawat, AAG.

¶12

Dr.Ganesh Parihar, Addl. Government Counsel.

¶13

By the Court:

¶14

After hearing the parties, I find that pursuant to interim order, learned Collector issued an order of posting of petitioner at Peesangan. The joining was given on 01.06.2012 but the petitioner was not allowed to mark attendance. As per the reply, it was due to dispute about designation. According to the respondent/s, petitioner was required to give joining on the post of Assistant Programme Officer (for short “APO”) whereas she had given joining as Programme Officer (for short “PO”).

¶15

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1209/2012 (Miss Teena Mahawar Vs. Shri C.S.Rajan & Ors.) along with one other.

¶16

¶17

I find that after joining on 01.06.2012, the petitioner

¶18

was repeatedly giving reminders for attendance, however, no reply was ever given by the respondents to direct the petitioner to join on the post of APO. The petitioner should have been allowed to join the post of APO and could have been directed to mention correct designation. The in action on the part of the respondents shows nothing but contempt of court's order. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner since 01.06.2012 to 11.01.2013.

¶19

At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submits that payment as directed by this Court would be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and thereupon, nothing will remain in the petition, thus it may be disposed of. The aforesaid has been agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/s.

¶20

In view of above, this writ petition so as the contempt petition are disposed of with the direction/s given above. The

¶21

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1209/2012 (Miss Teena Mahawar Vs. Shri C.S.Rajan & Ors.) along with one other.

¶22

¶23

compliance of the aforesaid direction may be made by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

Notices are discharged.

¶25

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶26

S/No.233-234 preety, Jr.P.A.

¶27

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h ave been in cor por at ed in t h e

¶28

j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶29

Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.

Miss Teena Mahawar v. C S Rajan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Teena Mahawar v. C S Rajan and Others

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

Puran Singh Solanki Vs State Education Departmentanr

Sharwan Kumar Pareek Vs State Education Dep Anr.

Jitendra Singh Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Subhash Bhardwaj Vs State Treasury and Acco Anr.

Jagmohan Meena Vs State Education Departmentors

Manju Kumari Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.