In a dismissed review petition, the High Court rejected the petitioner's argument about rules validity, noting the submission was not raised earlier and could not be grounds for review of the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 1)
[WRW-162/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 162/2019
The Executive Engineer, Phed Division, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Rishi Soni. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
14/01/2021
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner qua the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that the semi permanent status was sought to be conferred based on the Rules of 1964, which Rules itself were repealed in the year 1995 and as the admitted claim is that the engagement is from the year 1996, the semi permanent status, could not have been granted.
The said submission, apparently was neither raised before the Labour Court nor in the writ petition.
In any case, as the submission pertains to the validity of the order dated 19.11.2018, the same cannot be made a subject matter of the review petition.
Consequently, the review petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
26-PKS/-
The Executive Engineer, Phed Division, Bhilwara
Rameshwar Lal S/o Onkar
Labour Court, Bhilwara
ARUN BHANSALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
