Allowed

Molita Devi v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CW/409/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition challenging the termination of a Health Worker's services. With both parties absent, the court converted an interim order staying the termination into an absolute order, thereby restoring the petitioner's service for the post of Health Worker.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination orders are stayed and the petitioner's services in the post of Health Worker are continued with salary.

Molita Devi Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22328]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 409/2013

Molita Devi

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. And Ors.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent.
For Respondent(s)	: Nonepresent.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

Order

¶12

17/05/2024

¶13

Grievance of petitioner arises out of orders dated 22.05.2012 (Annex.7), 19.12.2012 (Annex.9) and 08.01.2013 (Annex.10), vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated. Further, he seeks direction to the respondents to continue his services on the post of Health Worker and pay the salary.

¶14

None appears for the either parties.

¶15

It appears that owing to the interim order dated 20.02.2013 passed by this Court, petitioner has been serving to the satisfaction of the respondents for the past more than 10 years. 4. Both the parties seem to be satisfied with the interim arrangement, and that is why, perhaps there is no representation from either side.

¶16

The said order being apposite is reproduced as hereinbelow:-

¶17

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is working as ANM since 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in an identical petition involving the same issue,

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:22328]

[CW-409/2013]

this Court has passed interim order to the effect that the operation and effect of the termination order has been stayed.

¶22

Accordingly, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 19.12.2012 (Ann.12) and 08.01.2013 (Ann.10) are stayed. Connect this writ petition along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6234/2012 and 423/2013.

¶23

As the respondents are represented, notices are not required to be issued.”

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of while making the aforesaid interim order absolute with consequences to follow.

¶25

The parties are at liberty to file application, in case, they

¶26

have any out-surviving grievance.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶28

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶29

121-/Jitender//-

Molita Devi v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Molita Devi v. State of Raj. and Ors.

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

Rajeev Vs the State of Rajasthan

Umesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Snehlata Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Hari Kishan Vs the State of Rajasthan