Allowed

Prem Singh v. Chief Security Commissioner R

Rajasthan HC19 Nov 2013CW/736/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ challenge against an order de-deputing a medically de-categorized employee to a Head Cook post he lacked qualifications for, granting liberty to seek appropriate re-employment. If no representation is made within two months, he continues on the present post.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed liberty to make representation for appropriate post; to continue on existing post if no representation within two months.

Prem Singh Vs Chief Security Commissioner R — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.736/2004

¶4

Prem Singh

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chief Security Commissioner & Anr.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anshudhar Rathore, for petitioner Mr. S.S. Hasan, for respondents

¶9

¶10

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20^th November, 2003 whereby petitioner after medical de-categorization, was deputed on the post of Head Cook in the pay scale of 3050-4590.

¶11

The challenge to the order is made precisely on the ground that a medically de-categorized employee cannot be given post to which he is not in possession of required qualification.

¶12

The reply to the writ petition does not clarify as to how medically de-categorized employee can be given post to which he is not in possession of required qualification. The respondents were expected to deal with the case of the petitioner keeping in mind his qualification after medical decategorization. The post can be given to him keeping in mind

¶13

¶14

his qualification as well as medical category. In view of the above, impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. However, a period of more than 10 years is going to pass after impugned order as there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner. Thus presumption goes about working of the petitioner on the post of Head Cook.

¶15

In view of the above, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the respondents for appropriate post as per his medical category and qualification. In case of representation, the respondents will provide him a post as per rules. In absence of representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, presumption would be to continue on the post given to the petitioner vide the impugned order.

¶16

With the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. In case of representation by the petitioner, the impugned order would not stand, rather be treated as set aside.

¶17

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶18

FRBOHRA/736CWP2004.doc

¶19

Certificate:

¶20

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶21

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.

Prem Singh v. Chief Security Commissioner R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh v. Chief Security Commissioner R

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

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhoop Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravi Prakash Dhaka Vs State Local Self Dep Ors.

Executive Engineer P H E D Vs Mahendra Kumar Dhabai and Anr.

Ramswaroop Pareek Vs R C S a T and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Awasthi Vs State Panchyati Raj Depors