DESH RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
UNION OF INDIA
Referred Judgements :-
KANHAIYA LAI VS. UNION OF INDIA
SENGARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
Click here to view full judgement.
S. K. MAL LODHA, J. -
(1.)THIS is a bunch of twenty eight writ petitions before me which involve identical questions. They were heard together and I consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common order.
(2.)I will notice facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2361 of 1983 (Desh-Raj V. Union of India ).
The petitioner was given compulsory retirement. A review petition was filed. The review petition was accepted. The petition was ordered to be reinstated by order Anx. 1 dated March 22, 1983. Anx. 1 inter alia contains the following order : - "on review he is reinstated in service. The intervening period is to be treated as leave due". The petitioner is aggrieved of that part of the order by which the intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave due. He has filed the writ petition that the aforesaid part of the order may be quashed, and the non-petitioners (1) Union of India, (2) General Manager Northern Railway, Bikaner, House, New Delhi (3) Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Bikaner (4) Divisional Personnel Officer, Northan Railway, Bikaner may be directed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period he was kept out of employment.
A show cause notice was ordered to be issued on October 3, 1983. No reply has been filed.
The facts in the other writ petitions are substantially the same.
The petitioners in all the writ petitions have prayed for a similar directions to the non-petitioners.
(3.)LEARNED counsel for the parties stated on January 5, 1984 that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on January 10, 1984 and dictation of the order was deferred for one day at the request of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.
Today, I proceed to dictate the Order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.