Disposed

Reeta Kumari v. State Education Departmentors

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2017CW/12113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Writ Petition, the Court addressed a petitioner's claim regarding representation of service. The Court held that the matter was not res integra due to a coordinate bench's earlier order and directed the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation for consideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ and stay application stand disposed of; petitioner directed to submit a comprehensive representation within two weeks for respondents to decide within four weeks.

Reeta Kumari Vs State Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12113 / 2017

¶3

Reeta Kumari Daughter of Shri Videsh Kumar Meena, by Caste Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of Tilak Nagar, Ward No. 9, Behind Brahmchari Bagichi, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶8

The Joint Director (Personnel) Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶9

Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶10

Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Banswara Zone, Banswara (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaman Singh

¶14

For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶16

Order

¶17

26/07/2017

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition Number 15668/2012: Monika Meel v. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur & Ors., vide order dated 3.10.2012.

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-12113/2017]

¶21

It is further contended that the petitioner would be satisfied

¶22

if the State-respondents are directed to decide representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, which she is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶23

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Monika Meel (supra).

¶24

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible; however, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶25

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.

¶26

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶27

SS/242

Reeta Kumari v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta Kumari v. State Education Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teekaram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

B L Mehra Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Durga Upadhyaya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jamil Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Chandra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Bhanu Pratap Kumawat Vs S S C