High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 02 RAJ CK 0117

Dr. Krishna Jain vs Shri Rajeev Mehrishi, Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 4 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sangeet Lodha, J · Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 267 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 306 words

This misc. application has been filed by the applicant for modification of the order dated 6.12.18 passed by a Coordinate Bench in D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.160/16, whereby the prayer of the applicant for revival of the contempt petition already disposed of, was rejected, however, she was given liberty to avail the remedy before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal regarding payment of salary.

The directions issued by this Court read as under:-

"In view of the judgment referred to above and in the light of the facts of these cases, we do not find any reason to entertain the misc application to revive the contempt petitions once it was disposed of after hearing the misc applications pursuant to the liberty given in the first contempt petition. The contempt petition cannot be revived every time alleging that compliance has not been made for the period subsequent to the judgment of the court. The applicants have remedy before the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Tribunal thus while dismissing the misc applications, liberty is given to take appropriate remedy to seek the benefits as admissible."

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Non-Government Educational Institution wherein the applicant was working has been taken over by the State Government and therefore, now the applicant cannot approach the NonGovernment Educational Tribunal in respect of non-payment of salary, thus, the order may be modified giving the applicant liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under the law.

Keeping in view the submissions made by counsel for the applicant as aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the prayer for modification made, appears to be justified.

Accordingly, the directions issued by this Court are modified to the extent that the applicant shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the law in respect of her grievance as indicated above.

The application stands disposed of.