Skip to content


State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gopi Nath Gaur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 48 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)211
AppellantState of Rajasthan and anr.
RespondentGopi Nath Gaur
Excerpt:
.....passed for his re instatement, notionally from the date mentioned in the judgment of the learned single judge, then he may be able to obtain the pensionary benefits.;special appeal partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the..........perused the judgment dated 15-10-1974.2. since we are in agreement with the finding of the learned single judge, it is not necessary to mention the entire facts again.3. the only point pressed by mr. calla is that the respondent gopinath gaur was removed from service by the private management of the johri multipurpose higher secondary school before it was taken over by the state. the learned single judge in the detailed comprehensive judgment has held that there was no termination order of mr. gaur. mr. calla could not contest this finding seriously and all that he argued was that though there was no written order of termination it must be presumed so because in the list which was given by the management to the state at the time of transfer, the management did not mention the name of.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. We have heard Mr. Calla, Government Advocate at length and have also perused the judgment dated 15-10-1974.

2. Since we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary to mention the entire facts again.

3. The only point pressed by Mr. Calla is that the respondent Gopinath Gaur was removed from service by the private management of the Johri Multipurpose Higher Secondary School before it was taken over by the State. The learned Single Judge in the detailed comprehensive judgment has held that there was no termination order of Mr. Gaur. Mr. Calla could not contest this finding seriously and all that he argued was that though there was no written order of termination it must be presumed so because in the list which was given by the management to the State at the time of transfer, the Management did not mention the name of this particular teacher in it. Mr. Calla further pointed out that the earlier history narrated in the judgment shows that in connection with the grant of leave there was some dispute and the private management of the School refused to grant leave and further refused to allow to join after the period which was utilised by the respondent as leave which was never granted. From this, Mr. Calla wants us to infer that the termination by the Management must be presumed. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Calla. It is difficult to presume the service of an employee is terminated without there being my proper order in writing, merely because leave was refused and not granted. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent continued to be in service on the date the Management of the School was taken over by the State. We are further in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that since the State expressly took upon the responsibility of screening the staff and unless found unsuitable, to continue their services, it was the legal duty of the State Authorities to screen the respondent Shri Gaur and then to decide that he should continue in service or not.

4. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is limited to this extent that Shri Gaur should be got screened and if found suitable he may be re-instated retrospectively but no wages should be paid for this period.

5. It is common ground now that Shri Gaur has attainted superannuation age on 15-8-1977 during the pendency of this appeal. Obviously in view of this there cannot be any question of re-instatement in service. However, Mr. Mridul has rightly pointed out that if he is found suitable on screening and an order is passed for his re-instatement, notionally from the date mentioned in the judgments of the learned Single Judge, then he may be able to obtain the pensionary benefits.

6. Consequently we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with the above observations. There is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //