HANUMAN PRAJAPAT S/O SHRI NARAYAN PRAJAPAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/7296/2021 · 2025-01-27
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19336 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 19336 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:3751] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7296/2021 Hanuman Prajapat S/o Shri Narayan Prajapat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Uniara, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Jaipur.
3. Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Tonk.
4. Regional Forest Officer, Uniara Hq Aligarh District Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.R. Meena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 27/01/2025
1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed his oral termination order dated 31.01.2019.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged/appointed as Computer Operator vide order dated 16.10.2013 but without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, his services have been terminated orally in violation of provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.
3. The removal order cannot be assailed straightaway before this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of
[2025:RJ-JP:3751] (2 of 2) [CW-7296/2021] the Constitution of India. The controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Gopi Lal Teli Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others reported in 1995 (2) WLC 1.
3. Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided, this writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.
5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise industrial dispute by way of filing an application under Section 2A read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Conciliation Officer.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/6