Disposed

Heera Lal Choudhary S/O Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary v. Shri Narendra Kumar Gupta

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2020CCP/1587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained that an earlier order allowing him to be regularized as a driver by the respondent company was not complied with. The court found the petitioner had actually joined duty and his services were regularized as admitted, finding no ground for further interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed with direction to avail appropriate remedy for any remaining grievance.

Heera Lal Choudhary S/O Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 158712018

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.561/2017

¶4

Heera Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ghatamdas Tan Nathursar, Post Holya Ka Bas, Police Station Srimadhopur, District Skiar (Raj.)

¶5

h ----Petitioner
A?$.. <4*kkg34~& 4 4 Tqg~$?+, tw'>-,jE;$
s;"\ ,.s Versus ,:!+$ $3 ' , , ". py
www<
k. : Q , ,j,
Shri Naren2dra%Kumar %t yq Gupta, Managing i~~taai~ur City
TransportiSWices Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Old Working ~ornkn Hostel,
Behindwhru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. "4 g 2
?Y' "%?- "
----Respondent

¶6

&*. '6% .-$$p&?C-. - 7 :< 8.. *.
&y2'"" yy&%
.a. %q2 W-%V .m
" yr{qdJ'" &%'
For Petitioner(s) . #fLL~~ $9 -fi- M;. b, . ,A - .,i.; -@, & ghasma !p+-&pb szo.4, &Jt Advocate (through
&~~p$@&msae:re.,nc kb4?,. ssi.': rrix.,;h -x 4pq,$2k+:,j)

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JU

¶8

02/09/2020

¶9

Petitioner has filed g that the order passed . . . ..< .. . -?% v#k "s , " 9 .piby this Court dated 19.8 not""b"een complied with.

¶10

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶11

Petitioner had filed writ petition alleging that he had been selected as a Driver with Jaipur City Transport Services Limited after due process, but had been denied appointment on the ground that he had been prosecuted in a criminal case. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and it was ordered that

¶12

he would be permitted to join as a Driver and needful would be done within two weeks. Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed.

¶13

In pursuance to the above order, admittedly, petitioner has been allowed to join his duty and his services have been regularised. In this factual background, no ground for further interference by this Court is called for.

¶14

. r r- 4 $it.. d Petition stands.~~.sposd o i. -:u.l.e rged. &"-" #$-$ Howeveb . inw2case, petitioner still has samg-grievance, he #&. y p %+,: - ,, A' up would be 'atpberty to avail appropriate remedy as pe.~$yy. .&Q 1 %--.

¶15

(CHANDRA MAR

¶16

Sanjay Ki~mawat-52

Heera Lal Choudhary S/O Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary v. Shri Narendra Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Lal Choudhary S/O Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary v. Shri Narendra Kumar Gupta

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

Laxman Singh Son of Shri Kundan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Singh Son of Shri Kundan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Son of Shri Ram Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs Shri Krishan Kunal and Ors.

Kalyan Prasad Sharma S/O Lt. Shri Harsahay Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principle Secretary

Balhit Siksha Samiti Vs Smt. Manju Rajpaal