- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Rajasthan High Court Weekly...
Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: July 25 - July 31, 2022
ANIRUDH VIJAY
2 Aug 2022 12:55 PM GMT
Judgments/ Orders of the Week State Can't Discriminate Between Allopathic & Ayurvedic Doctors In Fixing Retirement Age: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208 While hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging different age of superannuation for Allopathic...
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
While hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging different age of superannuation for Allopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Ayurvedic Doctors, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. LL 2021 SC 346. The court opined that the Supreme Court has left no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter.
During the course of hearing, the court was informed that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016. The court noted that some of the petitioners are still working, while some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan High Court recently upheld termination of an employee who obtained compassionate appointment by concealment of facts. The petitioner was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him allegedly on account of paucity of space in attestation form.
The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.
Essentially, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, he had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.
Other Important Updates
Case Title: M/s. Shri Kalyan Marbles v. The Union Of India & others
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has requested the Advocate General to address the court in a plea challenging imposition of GST on royalty, amid conflicting orders from two division benches of the court.
During the course of hearing, Adv. Abhay Singla appearing on behalf of the petitioner informed that a writ petition involving the same issue in M/s Shivalik Silica Versus Union of India & Others was earlier dismissed by a Division Bench of Jaipur Bench on 17.12.2021. Subsequently in Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus Union of India, a bunch of writ petitions were entertained by the Principal Bench at Jodhpur on the same issue and notices were issued and thereby an interim order was passed on 05.07.2022.
Considering the aforesaid aspect, division bench comprising Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta, observed,
"Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, we would request the Learned Advocate General to address the Court on the issue."
Case Title: Kunal Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the government to change the terminology like 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' used for women in different schemes.
The present public interest litigation has been filed by Kunal Rawat.
A division bench of Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, observed, "Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 27.07.2022. In addition, 'dasti' service is permitted."
The court also granted liberty to the counsel appearing for the petitioner to serve Standing Counsel for the respective respondents.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State Of Rajasthan
In the case pertaining to Rajasthan Royals' failure to pay over 850 police officials who were deployed during 2011 Indian Premier League (IPL) matches, amicus curiae Abhishek Sharma has informed the High Court that the dues add up to Rs.6,98,86,753/-, and there is no compliance by the franchise cricket team.
Sharma stated that the aforesaid amount was payable by the Franchise to the State under an agreement, however, the same has not been deposited yet.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice SS Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has granted some more time to the counsel appearing for RR to seek instructions in the matter.
Case Title: Gopal Singh Bareth v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has permitted impleadment of the Centre's Labour Department in a PIL seeking to institutionalise a 'rescue and rehabilitation mechanism' for all child labourers in the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SS Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed the application filed by petitioner, Advocate Gopal Singh Bareth. It ordered,
"Petitioner who appears in person prays for leave to amend the petition so as to implead the concerned department of the Central Government as party-respondent. Leave granted. Issue notice to the newly added respondents, returnable on 02.08.2022."
Earlier, the Court had sought for a firm and concrete action plan from the state to curb child labour activities. During the course of hearing on Wednesday, Advocate General M.S. Singhvi invited the court's attention to the various compliance reports and assured that further consolidated compliance report, including steps taken, if any, in respect of rehabilitation will be incorporated in the affidavit to be filed.
Case Title: Priyansha Gupta v. Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the central and state governments to effectively implement the provisions of Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019 and to stop sale, use, consumption, possession of e-cigarettes.
The PIL was filed by Priyansha Gupta, a fourth-year law student at School of Law, Bennett University. The petitioner stated that she has conducted exhaustive research and has thoroughly examined the actions taken by the State to eradicate the problem of the usage of electronic cigarettes in the country.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, observed,
"Heard petitioner in person. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 29.07.2022. In addition, 'dasti' service is permitted."
Case Title: Mahendra Pal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court directed state's Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department to take apposite steps to prevent delay in filing replies to judicial proceedings and ensure that the Court matters are not delay unnecessarily.
Justice Arun Bhansali made the observation while hearing the case of a retired Ward Boy of Ayurvedic Department whose pension was not released since more than one year due to huge backlog of cases before the Department.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for the Department informed that the Officer-in-Charge is not cooperating and/or rather misbehaving with him, despite repeated indications made to the respondents and specifically the Officer-in-Charge to ensure that the factual reports are submitted in time and that needful, as required is done.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Singh Advocate v. State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued notice on a public interest litigation seeking directions to the state government to keep the grants and aid received from the Central Government in any of the nationalised Banks, instead of AU Small Finance Bank.
The plea filed by Advocate Sushil Kumar Singh states that it is matter of surprise as to why the State is not having faith in the nationalised Banks and depositing huge amount in the Private Bank. It added that if these Banks face losses, then the Central Government grant will also be in a "high risk zone".
Notices were issued by the division bench comprising Chief Justice S.S. Shinde and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand.
The plea alleged that the Grant of Central Government amounting to Rupees 2,003 Crores has been deposited in the Bank of AU Bank instead of any nationalised Bank including the State Bank of India.
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court (as per Article 223 of the Constitution of India) with effect from August 2.
Justice MM Shrivastava, the senior-most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, will be performing the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Shinde Sambhaji Shiwaji, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court.
