Virendra Kumar Awasthi S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 367 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Virendra Kumar Awasthi S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 January, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Shubha Mehta

   [2024:RJ-JP:2933-DB]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 66/2024

    Virendra Kumar Awasthi S/o Shri Jagmohan Awasthi, Aged About
    25 Years, R/o VPO Machari, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar At
    Present Working At PHC Bhankrota, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                          Versus
    1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
            Medical       And        Health     Department,            Government     Of
            Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
    2.      Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services,
            Rajasthan, Jaipur.
    3.      Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jaipur.
    4.      Medical Officer, PHC Bhankrota, District Jaipur.
    5.      Secretary, Medical Relief Society, PHC Bhankrota, Jaipur.
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.L. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment / Order

18/01/2024

Challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

based mainly on consideration that without holding any

departmental inquiry on the allegations of misconduct, the

appellant-contractual employee was terminated. The order

impugned in the writ petition shows that the appellant was a

contractual employee and he was not attending duties and there

were many allegations. The order also says that the number of

[2024:RJ-JP:2933-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-66/2024]

notices were given to the appellant to which he did not respond

and finally his services were terminated.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

reason for non-appearance was that all the contractual employees

were on strike and the appellant alone has been singled out,

whereas, other contractual employees have been reinstated in

service.

We find that this specific ground was not taken in the writ

petition.

Be that as it may, the appellant being a contractual

employee, could not claim protection similar to that for regular

employee. The impugned order shows that he was given notice

and when he did not turn up, his services were terminated.

However, there is one aspect which needs to be dealt with. If

all other contractual employees who were on strike have been

reinstated in service, the respondent would be under obligation to

examine the case of the appellant, in case, the appellant submits

a representation for reinstatement seeking parity in treatment.

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is disposed off.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Mohita /5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)