Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRABHU NARAIN POLIA versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRABHU NARAIN POLIA v STATE - CW Case No. 4711 of 1994 [2006] RD-RJ 2490 (4 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT BENCH JAIPUR

ORDER

SB Civil Writ Petition No.4711/94

Prabhu Narain Polia Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Another.

Date of Order : 4.12.2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice KS Rathore

Mr. Deepak Asopa, for the petitioner.

Mr. BS Chhaba, Additional Govt. Advocate.

This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner for compliance of the judgment dated 15th

December, 1988 passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of "Abdul Sattar & Others Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Another" wherein the Division

Bench has allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

"In the premises aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed. We direct the respondents to fix the petitioners in Gr.-

I Male Nurse/Compounder with effect from the date they acquired the requisite qualification and, further direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners. We allow three months time to the respondents to give effect to the directions given in this order. We also direct the respondents to consider the case of all other Gr.-I

Male Nurses/Compounders who have acquired the requisite qualifications and to give them the benefit of Gr.-I with effect from the date they acquired the said qualifications irrespective of the fact whether they have filed writ petition or not".

Now this writ petition is preferred as the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Division Bench. The petitioner Prabhu

Narian Polia was a party to the judgment rendered by the division Bench. There were as many as 31 petitioners before the Division Bench out of which certain persons have been given benefit but the petitioner has not been given as directed by the

Division Bench.

The State has preferred appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 15.12.88 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its 8th judgment dated May, 1992, has observed as under:-

"In our view, having heard to the circumstances and the interplay of various rules and circulars, orders and letters referred to by the parties, the matter requires reconsideration. We, therefore, think that the case should go back for rehearing before the High Court where all these questions will be examined and we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Since, the pleadings of the parties were not complete before the

High Court and the different Government orders, circulars, letters, rules etc. to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the parties before us were also not referred to before the High Court, we permit both sides to file fresh affidavits explaining their cases in clear terms and file copies of orders, circulars, letters or rules, which may be relevant for arriving at the correct decision. The impugned judgments are, in the circumstances, set aside and the appeals allowed in the terms noticed here in above and the cases remitted to the High Court for rehearing and a fresh decision in accordance with law".

Since Hon'ble the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 8th May, 1992 remanded the matter back to the High Court, it is for the petitioner to file affidavit in the earlier writ petition as the parties were given liberty by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court before the High Court explaining their case in clear terms and the order which was required to implemented.

The right way of redressing his grievance is that the petitioner has to file affidavit in the earlier writ petition as the Hon'ble the Supreme

Court has provided opportunity of being heard and liberty has been granted to explain correct position by way of filing affidavit.

In view of the observations made by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

(KS RATHORE), J.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.