High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 07 MEG CK 0006

Smti Golabi Rabi Das, W/o Late Hari Rabi Das vs The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Rural Development, & Ors.

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 10 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ved Prakash Vaish
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
256 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

17 paragraphs · 343 words
1.

By way of the present petition the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to regularize/renew the job card and to pay the unemployment

wages to the petitioner since 2011.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that job card was issued to the husband of the petitioner namely, Hari Rabi Das bearing job card No. MG-05-019-

524-499/1292, dated 21st March, 2006. It is also stated that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2011 leaving behind the petitioner and

sons to work under the said job card. The name of the husband of the petitioner was appearing at Sl. No. 188 in the Register of Job Cards of

Kasharipara village and the same was deleted.

3.

The petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit.

4.

Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that job card No. MG-05-019-524-499/1292, dated 21st March, 2006

was issued to Hari Rabi Das husband of the petitioner who expired in the year 2011. He also pointed out that the job card of Hari Rabi Das was

deleted after his death.

5.

Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 has also pointed out the petitioner is having a separate job card which is

mentioned at Sl. 189 in the Register of Job Card holders of Kasharipara village and the same has not been deleted.

6.

At this stage, Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, after considering the list of job card holders, submits that he does not press the

present petition and he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition. He has moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition which is

taken on record. Learned counsel for respondents submit that he has no objection to the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for petitioner as well as the application filed

by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.