Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part II [Citations 201 - 430]

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 430 Orders/Judgments of the Year (June 2025 – December 2025)Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Plant Ten Times The Number Of Trees Affected By Road Widening & Beautification Work Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201 While hearing pleas against demolition drives for road widening allegedly conducted without following procedure, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to first count number of plants/trees which are to be removed for beautification work and road expansion, and subsequently plant trees ten times of this number in nearby public areas. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting trees and plants was an initiative considered appropriate by the Court, as thriving tree, whether for decades or centuries provided continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community. Issue Of Non-Joinder In Amendment To Written Statement Holds No Weight Unless Party Is Indispensable Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Rajasthan HC Title: Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202 While upholding Trial Court's order of dismissing application to amend the written statement, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court held that the plaintiff being the master of the lis could not be compelled to include or exclude particular individuals. Hence, the issue of non-joinder in the amendment did not hold any weight unless the party was indispensable under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. “…plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to choose the parties to be impleaded in a suit. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to include or exclude particular individuals.” 'Pay Minus Pension' Can't Be Retrospectively Recovered From Retd Doctors Due To AIIMS Jodhpur's Ignorant Attitude: Rajasthan High Court Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203 In pleas by retired doctors “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur against imposition “Pay minus pension” rule five years after their appointment orders were issued without such condition, the Rajasthan High Court slammed the hospital for being ignorant about the law applicable upon its employees. The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the statutory provisions governing the field of “re-employed” persons could not be excluded merely because of an omission on part of the employer in clarifying the same in the advertisement notice or appointment order. Furthermore, the Court perused All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (“1999 Regulations”) and opined that Regulation 33 indicated that if a retired person was employed at AIIMS, he/she had to be treated as a re-employed person. Further, the Court opined that once it was determined that the petitioners were re-employed, 1986 Orders clearly required application of the rule “pay minus pension”. At the same time, the Court opined that the lackadaisical and ignorant attitude of AIIMS had led to this controversy. Hence, it was not fair to seek retrospective recovery of the amount already paid to the doctors, at this belated stage for no fault on theirs. Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Unani Student Whose Admission Was Cancelled For Not Submitting Open School Marksheet Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204 The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a student whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, was cancelled after he could not submit original mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School. It was ruled that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the object of the admission scheme. The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the National Council For Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) had to be interpreted using the principles of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to mean that while final approval of admission could not be granted without original documents, it did not mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to comply was due to reasons beyond candidate's control. Arbitration Act | Notice U/S 21 Not Always Necessary If Other Party Was Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205 Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not...

Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part II [Citations 201 - 430]

Nupur Agrawal

Tags