The writ petition challenging the bank's decision to deduct salary without present petitioner was dismissed as no case for writ interference existed due to disputed facts.
None.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:34718]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6302/2017
Ajay Pal Meena S/o Shri Ram Pratap Meena, C-21, Mahal Yojna, Jagatpura, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
16/11/2023
On 07.11.2023 this court passed the following order:-
“None present on behalf of the petitioner. However in the interest of justice, list this matter again on 16.11.2023.”
Today also none present on behalf of the petitioner to argue
the matter.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
“it is therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and:
i. by an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof thereby the impugned order dated 29.4.2016
(2 of 2)
[2023:RJ-JP:34718]
[CW-6302/2017]
passed by the respondents whereby declined the petitioner from salary of March, 2015 and from 1.6.2015 to 24.4.2016 may kindly be declared as illegal and arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. by an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of salary of March 2015 and 1.6.2015 to 24.4.2016 to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.
iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
I have gone through the record and I find that highly disputed questions of facts have been involved in this writ petition, therefore, in my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/Tushar/431
1 issue framed by the court
Whether highly disputed questions of facts in a writ petition concerning salary deduction warrant interference under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Pal Meena
Indian Overseas Bank
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
