Dismissed

Rakesh Intodia v. M/S.Hindustan Zinc Limited and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2022CW/1727/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order dismissed a writ petition against Hindustan Zinc Limited based on the precedent set in P. Paliwal. The court held the petition is not maintainable and directed the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of declaring it is not maintainable; appropriate remedies are left open to the petitioner.

Rakesh Intodia Vs M/S.Hindustan Zinc… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1727/2003

¶3

Rakesh Intodia, aged 40 years, son of Shri Tejpal Intodia, R/o 328-B, Sevashram Chouraha, Udaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited, yashad Bhawan, Udaipur

¶7

The Unit Head, Hindustan Zinc Limited, Rampur Agucha Mine, Post Agucha, District Bhilwara

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. P.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Kamini Joshi for
	Mr. Rajesh Joshi,Sr. Advocate

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

12/07/2022

¶13

The matter comes upon an application preferred on behalf of the respondent- M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited, wherein, it has been prayed that in view of the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Paliwal vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.236/1984 decided on 23.11.2017 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.12.2021, the present writ petition against the Hindustan Zinc Limited is not maintainable and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

In P. Paliwal vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited & Ors. , the

¶15

Division Bench held as under:-

¶16

“25. Holding that as of today the writ petitions by the workmen are not maintainable against Hindustan Zinc Limited we leave open remedies which the writ petitioners can avail of as per law

¶17

(2 of 2) [CW-1727/2003]

¶18

and for purposes of limitation declare that time spent in this Court till date of this decision would be excluded while computing limitation.

¶19

26. The writ petitions and special appeal are disposed of declaring as above.”

¶20

In view of the above observations as made by the Division Bench, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms. It would be open for the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available to him in terms of law and if the same is done, the period spent in this Court in the present petition would be excluded while computing limitation.

¶21

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶22

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶23

11-Ashutosh/-

Rakesh Intodia v. M/S.Hindustan Zinc Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Intodia v. M/S.Hindustan Zinc Limited and Anr.

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

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Judge

Pradeep Kumar Chhangani Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakuntala Devi Vs Avvn Ltd.and Ors.

Deepika Garg Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.

Dinesh Paliwal and Ors. Vs State Medical and Health and Ors.