Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Director, Jan Shikshan Sansthan vs Nalin Singh Gehlot S/O Sh. Laxmi Narain ... on 30 September, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 980/2019
Director, Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Established By Ministry Of Hrd,
Govt. Of India, 9-10, Jhalawar Road, Vigyan Nagar, Kota.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nalin Singh Gehlot S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain Gehlot, R/o
11/563, Shree Pura, Kota, Rajasthan.
2. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human
Resource Development, Department Of School Education
And Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Director, Ministry Of Skill Development And
Enterpreneurship, Snp Division, Shivaji Stadium, Annexe,
New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Kapoor For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 30/09/2019
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, whereby the learned Single Judge taking note of Section 20(3 & 4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, 'the Act of 2016'), as the respondent/writ-petitioner acquired disability during his service, disposed of the application requiring the appellant to pay salary on month to month basis to the respondent/writ-petitioner. (Downloaded on 04/10/2019 at 09:02:08 PM)
(2 of 2) [SAW-980/2019]
2. Counsel for the appellant has insisted that the
respondent should be required to submit the leave application as he is not in a position to efficiently discharges his duties.
3. Counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner submits that he is submitting medical certificate to the appellant by post and due to paralysis he is not in a position to join. It is argued that according to Proviso to Section 20(4) of the Act of 2016, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he is required to be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.
4. Having considered the nature of the dispute, we do not wish to entertain the appeal and consider the matter on merits as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties, and at the same time we are not inclined to interfere with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge requiring the appellant to pay salary to the respondent/writ-petitioner, but we request the learned Single Judge to take up the matter and decide the main writ petition itself on the next date or any other date within one month or in vicinity thereof.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
6. The writ petition may be listed before the leaned Single Judge on 11.11.2019.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),Acting CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /s-105 (Downloaded on 04/10/2019 at 09:02:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)