Rajasthan High Court
WRES/161/2026 of HANSRAJ S/O SHRI NANDKISHORE Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 20 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 161/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2023 Hansraj S/o Shri Nandkishore, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Behind The Jail, Nehru Nagar Ram Dham Colony Chabra, District Baran Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State
[2026:RJ-JP:21284]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 161/2026
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2023
Hansraj S/o Shri Nandkishore, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Behind The Jail, Nehru Nagar Ram Dham Colony Chabra, District Baran Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Water Resource, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Division- II Chabra, District Baran Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Manish Saini
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
20/05/2026
1. It has been stated in the writ petition that verbal termination of petitioner from the post of Driver was assailed, however, pursuant to the interim order dated 24.08.2023 passed in the writ petition, petitioner was continued in service, but his wages were not released, hence, a misc. application (1/2026) was moved, seeking direction for release of due wages/salary of petitioner.
2. When the writ petition came up on Board on 07.04.2026, writ petition came to be disposed of by the Court in absence of petitioner by recording the statement made on behalf of respondents that there is no verbal termination and petitioner is continuing in office so also being regularly paid his wages.
[2026:RJ-JP:21284] (2 of 2) [WRES-161/2026]
3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the statement made by counsel for respondents before the Court was a mis-statement and indeed due wages/salary of petitioner has not been paid.
4. In that view of the matter, since the order dated 07.04.2026 was passed without hearing to the counsel for petitioner and in his absence, petitioner should have moved an application for recalling of the order dated 07.04.2026 but instead petitioner has filed the application for restoration, therefore, this restoration application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for recalling of the order dated 07.04.2026 in order to restore S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13161/2023. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/29