Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22514 (RAJ)

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION v. THE UNION OF INDIA

CW/9631/2025 · 2025-07-04

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:24679] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9631/2025 West Central Railway Employees Union, Having Its Registered Office At Kota Through Its General Secretary Mukesh Galav, Son Of Shri Hansraj Galav, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 43, Royal Town, Pashu Chikitsalya Ke Samne, Kherli, Kota (Rajasthan) Pin-324001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. General Manager, West Central Railway, Indra Market, Jabalpur. 4. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Industrial Relation), General Managers Office, Western Central Railway, Head Quarter Office At Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 5. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Western Central Railway, Kota Junction, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa Mr. Prakash Kumar Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Teterwal with Mr. Kshitiz Sharma Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, wants to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of law. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are bent upon to [2025:RJ-JP:24679] (2 of 2) [CW-9631/2025] eject the petitioner from the premises in question, so interim protection be granted for a particular period, so that the petitioner can avail remedies available to him. 2. Considering the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. 3. In case, the petitioner approaches the authorities concerned within a period two weeks from today, it is expected from the authorities concerned to decide the said application expeditiously as early as possible. 4. Till then it is ordered that for a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 5. The petitioner would be at liberty to move stay application along-with the application and the Authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the stay application strictly in accordance with law. 6. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/30