Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-05-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC162; 1999(1)WLN499
B.J. Shethna, J.1. An unfortunate young widow has to wait for justice for as many as 12 long years. The respondent is Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.), which is a mighty institution by itself. This legal battle is between David and Goliath.2. The petitioner has become widow in her young age of 30 years. On the death of her late husband Jaswant Kumar Chauhan, who died oh 10th September, 1982, at the young age of only 36 years, leaving behind him his young widow and two minor children, a son and a daughter, aged only 10 and 4 years respectively. Shri Jaswant Kumar took Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 51,000/-, for which the proposal was made on 22.10.1980, which was accepted by the LIC on 20th January, 1981 and the Policy was also issued later on in favour or Shri Jaswant Kumar. He paid first premium of Rs. 1494/- on 29.12.1980, by nominating his wife Smt. Manju Devi - the present petitioner as the sole nominee. Next premium was also paid on 20th January, 1982. Unfortunately, Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-29-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Raj370; 1999(3)WLC490; 1999(1)WLN420
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure 4), by which the State Government has taken over the school and appointed an Administrator in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The main challenge by the petitioner Management Committee is that the Administrator contemplated by Section 10(1) of the Act is an Administrator to be appointed by the State Government and, therefore, should necessarily be an official of the State Government. The Administrator cannot be a private person and even if a private person/society is appointed as such, the same must be in consonance with rules 19.23 and 24 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition. Grand-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1993').3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-04-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)WLC273; 1999(1)WLN444
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioner claims that he was initially appointed as a Class IV employee known as 'Jaldhari' in the Government Upper Primary School in Panchayat Samiti, Bagidora, district Banswara, with effect from 16-7-1993 and since then he has been continuously working as such. However, he is being treated as a part-time employee and is being paid the consolidated salary and not the salary in the minimum pay scale of the post of Class IV employee. Thus, the petition has been filed seeking direction for regularisation and for payment of the pay scale of a regular employee.2. The issue whether the petitioner is a part-time employee or is working whole day, is a question of fact which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the main issue involved in the present case is whether the petition be entertained or petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The issue of maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-24-1999
Reported in : 2001ACJ1239; [2000(84)FLR346]; (1999)IILLJ1287Raj; 1999(3)WLC442
A.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated May 15, 1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur in case No. 76/1989, whereby a sum of Rs. 83,182/- with interest has been awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below: -3. A petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur against the appellant as well as the respondents No. 1 to 2 with a prayer that a sum of Rs. 85,400/- be awarded to the claimants by way of compensation. According to the averments made in the petition, Shri Murlidhar husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 5 was working as a driver on the Jeep No. MBF-742 which was in the possession and use of Shri Ramesh Chandra, claimant No. 2.4. Shir Murlidhar was getting a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. On June 10, 1989, he was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-06-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ1660; 2000(2)WLC739
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. All these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors/Additional Government Advocates working in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the District Courts subordinate to it. As common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.2. At this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') read with the provisions of The Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (for short, 'the Manual') and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-09-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC540; 1999(1)WLN254
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated 30.8.1995 (Annexure.3), by which it has been held that the respondent- workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year counting backward from the date of termination and the termination order has further been found to have been passed without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947').2. The Labour Court has passed the order of reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and with all the back wages. While making that award, the Labour Court has observed that the employer (present petitioner), after filing the counter-claim and entering appearance, did not participate in the proceedings nor it led any evidence to support its case that the respondent-workman was removed after following the enquiry, nor it had made any application that the issue ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-15-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC371; 1999(1)WLN276
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In the instant petition, an application has been filed by applicant-petitioner on 29.10.1998 for restoring the said writ petition on its original number and hear it expeditiously as desired by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. The application came for orders on 10.11.1998 and learned Counsels for the respondents also put their appearance. On that date, Mr. Mridul was asked to explain as under what circumstances the application can be entertained at such a belated stage in absence of any explanation of delay and the applicant was directed to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay on his part. The matter was listed again on 14.12.1998 and on that day also, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties only on the ground of delay and laches, the case was adjourned for' 12.2.1999.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The applicant was employed temporarily by the respondent All India Radio on the post of Assistant Engineer. On 12.2.1982, the applicant sought N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-18-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC723; 1999(1)WLN478
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. In all these cases, the validity of the provision of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government. Servants Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules') has been challenged as being unconstitutional, ultra-vires and arbitrary.2. The relevant rules, for determination of the controversy, read as under:2 (c) 'Dependent' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.Rule-5 Appointment subject to certain condition-When a government servant dies while in service, one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that employment under these Rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or atleast one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/daughter of the deceased government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-18-1999
Reported in : II(2000)ACC217; 2001ACJ2076; 2000(1)WLC651
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the claim arising as a consequence of accidental death of petitioner's father and make payment of the claim at the rate of double of the insured amount.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner's father Mahendra Nath Arora had been working with respondent No. 2-University and he was a member of Pension and Group Insurance Scheme of respondent No. 1 -- the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He died on 2-11-1990 at Ayodhya-Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, on account of firing made by U.P. Police and other Forces deployed by the State to save the Babri Mosque. His family members has been paid the amount ofinsurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1,01,907/ - but petitioner's claim is that as per the Terms of the Policy, they were entitled to the sum double of the insured amount and as said amount has not been paid, they have approached this Court.3. Res...
Tag this Judgment!