Subiya Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5373 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6833/2023

Subiya Khan D/o Abdul Rehman, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Zahoor Masjid, Behind Rajasthan Patrika, Amarsinghpura, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Medical Education, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limites (Rmsc), Department Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

4. Principal Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner.

5. Principal Govt. Nursing College, Bikaner.

6. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Bikaner, Through Secretary, District Bikaner.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Ms. Anjali Verma for
                                 Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s)          :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

26/05/2023

1. Petitioner's grievance is that she was working on contract basis

under the respondents, and she is apprehending disengagement

of her services.

2. Ms. Anjali Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner would feel satisfied if the respondents are

directed to consider her representation (which she would be filing)

(2 of 2) [CW-6833/2023]

in light of the judgment of this Court dated 19.01.2021, passed in

Jai Prakash Ganchi & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.(S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No.7273/2020) and also in light of circular dated

02.09.2020.

3. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the

direction to the petitioner to file a representation, while enclosing

photostat copy of the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Ghanchi

(supra) and photostat copy of the circular dated 02.09.2020 within

a period of four weeks from today.

4. In case, representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall do the needful, in accordance with law, preferably

within a period of eight weeks from receipt thereof.

5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

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.

6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

7. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in

the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 91-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)