SAW/1133/1998 of GIRISH SANKHALA, ADVOCATE Vs STATE OF RAJ. and ORS on 7 November 2001

Conclusion

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1135/1998

27.4.2006

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.VYAS

Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya, for the appellant.None present for the respondents.

...

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantand perused the record under appeal, we are of theopinion that no interference is called for in the order at thisstage. The learned Single Judge taking into considerationthe fact that the petitioner – respondent was being paidsalary of Rs.50/- per month only and also noticing the factthat in large number of cases referred to in the judgmentunder appeal, the Court has directed to start paying suchworkmen minimum of pay scale with effect from the dateof filing of the writ petition and consider the case forregularisation. The writ petition was also disposed of withsame directions.

While admitting the appeal, no interim order waspassed. Nothing has been brought to our notice that factsof the present case are different from the case referred toby the learned Single Judge and on the basis of which directions have been issued.

In these circumstances, no interference is called forin the judgment under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Noorder as to costs.

(R.P.VYAS)J.(RAJESH BALIA)J.

Ss/