Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Principal Secretary Medical Dept Ors vs Sannu Devi (2025:Rj-Jp:17632) on 25 April, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:17632]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3841/2017
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Medical
And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society Primary
Health Center, Sirsi Jaipur
3. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Block Sirsi Jhotwara
Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
Sannu Devi W/o Shri Santosh Kumar, Plot No.120, Parik Mohalla,
Ward No. 12, Sirsi Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, learned Additional
Government Counsel with
Ms. Anjali Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
25/04/2025
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4 th
December, 2014 passed by the Competent Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on application No. MW.20/2013 as well
as against the order dated 6th April, 2016 passed by the same
authority, whereby the application for recalling the earlier order
dated 4th December, 2014 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the purpose
of seeking relief under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the
employee knock the doors of the Competent Authority is required
to prove the relationship of Master and Servant as well as other
(Downloaded on 30/04/2025 at 10:15:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17632] (2 of 4) [CW-3841/2017]
necessary facts. In the instant case, although on filing application
by the non-petitioner, notices were issued to the petitioners
however, the reply to the application could not be filed and only on
account of not filing reply to the application, the contents of the
application filed by the non-petitioner have been taken to be
proved and only on the basis of the fact that there was no reply to
the application on record, order dated 4 th December, 2014 has
been passed. However subsequently, when application for recalling
was filed, the same was also not entertained on the ground that
on earlier occasion at the time of deciding the application filed by
the non-petitioner, even on receipt of notices, reply was not filed.
Hence, it was held that there was no ground to recall the order
dated 4th December, 2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as such the
petitioner could not defend her cause properly before the
Competent Authority under the Act of 1948 and had there being
any proper opportunity, they would have placed the sufficient
evidence to prove that the Competent Authority had no
jurisdiction to entertain the application.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-petitioner states that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived for
the reasons that despite having served with the notices before the
Competent Authority under the Act of 1948, the petitioners chose
not to file reply; and only when the applications for compliance
filed by the petitioner, in order to defeat the rights of the non-
petitioner, an application for recalling the order dated 4 th
December, 2014 was filed by the petitioner, which has rightly been
rejected by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel for the
(Downloaded on 30/04/2025 at 10:15:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17632] (3 of 4) [CW-3841/2017]
respondents has further submits that there was sufficient material
on record before the Competent Authority to come to the
conclusion that the non-petitioner was entitled for the relief as
granted by the Competent Authority.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
also examined the record. On Bare perusal of order dated 4 th
December, 2014, it would reveal that instead of examining the
application filed by non-petitioner on merits on the basis of
documents and other evidence, the Competent Authority has
passed its order merely on the fact that reply to the application
was not filed by the petitioner. While arriving at such finding, the
settled position of law that it was for the applicant to prove its
own merit, has been ignored by the Court below and it is clear
that the petitioners could not file their reply and place their
evidence to controvert the case put up by the non-petitioner.
6. During the course of arguments it has been admitted by both
the parties that the amount awarded by the Competent Authority
vide order dated 4th December, 2014 has been disbursed by the
petitioner and received by the non-petitioner.
7. Under these circumstances, it would be in the interest of
justice to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners to file reply
and documents before the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the
order dated 4th December, 2014 is modified to the extent that a
fresh adjudication shall be made by the Competent Authority after
receiving reply to the application and evidence. The petitioner
shall file its reply within the period of fifteen days and thereafter
both the parties shall be given fair opportunity to lead evidence in
support of their respective cases. The Competent Authority shall
(Downloaded on 30/04/2025 at 10:15:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17632] (4 of 4) [CW-3841/2017]
decide the application within the period of six months from the
date of receipt of instant order.
8. Accordingly, the civil writ petition is disposed of. Stay
application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
NEERU /223
(Downloaded on 30/04/2025 at 10:15:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
