Malay Pandya vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9943 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7595/2021

Malay Pandya S/o Praveen Pandya, Aged About 32 Years, Rajpur, Tehsil And District Dungarpur At Present Working As Sr. Lab Technician, Govt. Medical College, Dungarpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Dirctor, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Principal And Controller, Govt. Medical College, Dungarpur.

4. Secretary, Matra Darshan Shiksha Samiti, Maru Kumawat Samaj Ka Nohra, Kheradiwada, Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Karan Joshi for Mr. CS Kotwani,
                                 through Cisco Webex
For Respondent(s)          :



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

01/07/2021

(1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

who was appointed on contractual basis on the post of Senior Lab

Technician has not been paid his monthly salary since September,

2020.

(2) Learned counsel submits that in this regard petitioner has

been representing the respondents and had submitted a detailed

representation on 8.4.2021, yet no heed has been paid.

(2 of 2) [CW-7595/2021]

(3) The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a

direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith

certified copy of the order instant before the competent authority.

(4) The competent authority is directed to do the needful as

early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks of

receiving the representation.

(5) In case, the competent authority is of the view that the

petitioner is not entitled for payment of due salary, it shall pass a

speaking order under intimation to the petitioner, against which,

his right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.

(6) It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

petitioner's representation has been issued only with a view to

ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same

may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation

in a particular manner.

(7) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

46-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)