Disposed

Ram Ayodhya Yadev v. Government of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CW/1214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning a labour-related grievance against the State Labour Department and Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd. was withdrawn with liberty to approach the competent authority; the court directed consideration of any representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation before competent authority; direction to consider it in accordance with law within three months.

Ram Ayodhya Yadev Vs Government of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:7889]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1214/2024

¶4

Ram Ayodhya Yadev S/o Jhapsi Yadev, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Sector 3 Hiran Magri, District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Government Of Rajasthan, Labour Department, Through Joint Labour Commissior And Conciliation Officer, 210-H, Sardarpura, Udaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Ltd., Through Managing Director, 4, Mira Marg, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. SanjayMathur
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

15/02/2024

¶14

After arguing for some time, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate his cause before the competent authority of the respondents.

¶15

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority of the respondent – Corporation.

¶16

In case, a representation is so addressed along with the certified copy of the order instant within a period of four weeks from today, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of three months of its receipt,

[CW-1214/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:7889]

(2 of 2)

having due regard to the long service which the petitioner has rendered.

¶21

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

¶22

The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶23

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶24

8-akansha/-

Ram Ayodhya Yadev v. Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ayodhya Yadev v. Government of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naynesh Sharma Vs Union of India

Kanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ran Singh Vs Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Pra. Nig. Ltd. and Ors.

Dharma Ram Vs Shri Naveen Jain

Sanjay Gurjar Vs Union of India

Hanuman Singh Vs Rsrtc and Ors.