Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: July 25 - July 31, 2022

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 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. Rajasthan High Court Upholds Termination Of Employee Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment By Concealing Criminal Cases Pending Against Him 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 Can Govt Levy GST On Royalty? Rajasthan High Court Asks Advocate General Amid Conflicting Views, Hearing Tomorrow 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." Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On PIL To Remove Words 'Baanjh', 'Parityakt', 'Nirashrit' Used For Women In Govt Schemes 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. Rajasthan Royals Owes ₹6.9 Crore To Over 850 Police Officials ...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: July 25 - July 31, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags