Suresh Chand Vs. State and ors.

Suresh Chand vs State and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 06, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/766885

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/766885
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Inder Sen Israni, J.
Decided On: Sep 06, 1991
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80 of 1991
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--Writ--Disputed question is where petitioner is part time or full time employee--Held, it can not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.;Since the only question, under consideration, is whether the petitioner is working as a part-time or a full-time employee. This is a disputed ques...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh Chand

Respondent

State and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1991(2)WLN506

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--writ--disputed question is where petitioner is part time or full time employee--held, it can not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.;since the only question, under consideration, is whether the petitioner is working as a part-time or a full-time employee. this is a disputed question of fact. therefore, such petitions cannot be entertained, under writ jurisdiction of this court.;writ dismissed - - it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not only working as water-man, but he also performs other work, like sweeping school etc......month. it is also submitted that from anx. r/12 to anx. r/20, photo-stat copies of the attendance register, it is clear that the petitioner, on his own, added his name at the end of the attendance register and marked his attendance in the attendance register, which is otherwise meant for teachers. when this matter came to the knowledge of the school authorities, he apologised vide anx.ll dated 9.2.91.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. evidently, there is a dispute whether the petitioner has worked as a part-time or a full-time employee. however, from the documentary evidence, anx. r/1 to anx/r/4, it is clear that his name has been shown as part-time worker. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not only working as water-man, but he also performs other work, like sweeping school etc. this has not relevance, since the only question, under consideration, is whether the petitioner is working as a part-time or a full-time employee. this is a disputed question of fact. therefore, such petitions cannot be entertained, under writ jurisdiction of this court.4. the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Full Judgment

Inder Sen Israni, J.

1. Heard. It is submitted by Mr. G.D. Parwal, learned Counsel, that the petitioner is working as Class IV employee in respondent No. 3, School. It is further submitted that he performs his duty for whole day. It is also submitted that he is working since 1986. However, he gets only Rs. 60/- per month. It has been prayed that respondent No. 3 may be directed to give him regular pay scale of the post of Class IV employee.

2. It is submitted by Mr. K.S. Sharma, learned Counsel, that from Anx. R/1 dated 21.1.91, Anx. R/2 dated 28.8.86 & Anx. R/3 dated 1.7.87, it is clear that the petitioner is working as part-time employee. From these orders, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in place of one Gopali Bai, who was working as part-time employee in the school on Rs. 45/-per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who was already student of the school on his application, was appointed as part-time employee on Rs. 60/-per month. It is also submitted that from Anx. R/12 to Anx. R/20, photo-stat copies of the Attendance Register, it is clear that the petitioner, on his own, added his name at the end of the Attendance Register and marked his attendance in the Attendance Register, which is otherwise meant for teachers. When this matter came to the knowledge of the school Authorities, he apologised vide Anx.ll dated 9.2.91.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. Evidently, there is a dispute whether the petitioner has worked as a part-time or a full-time employee. However, from the documentary evidence, Anx. R/1 to Anx/R/4, it is clear that his name has been shown as part-time worker. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner is not only working as water-man, but he also performs other work, like sweeping school etc. This has not relevance, since the only question, under consideration, is whether the petitioner is working as a part-time or a full-time employee. This is a disputed question of fact. Therefore, such petitions cannot be entertained, under writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties Suresh Chand vs State and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Inder Sen Israni, J.

Service