Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 485 (RAJ)

Naresh Kumar Meena v. Kailashi Meena

2015-02-23

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by Smt.Kailashi Meena, widow of late Shri Ramnath Meena, claiming the retiral dues of her husband, who had voluntarily resigned from the post of Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Undu, District Barmer, and thereafter expired on 03.05.2010. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the Government Counsel, who submitted that the PPO and GPO were issued on 20.04.2010 during the life time of late husband of the petitioner, who expired on 03.05.2010, and that the pension was paid to him during his life time, and that subsequently the family pension has also been paid, disposed of the writ petition with direction that in case the writ petitioner makes a representation to the respondents, the unpaid dues will be paid to her within two months. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for Shri Naresh Kumar Meena, the appellant, a nephew of late Shri Ramnath Meena, that his application for intervention was allowed by learned Single Judge, and that he had placed the documents on record disclosing that the relations between late Shri Ramnath Meena and his wife namely, Smt. Kailashi Meena. She had left him after the marriage, and that he was not father of Shri Satish, born to Smt. Kailashi Meena. A case under Section 498A of the IPC was registered, in which the statement of Shri Satish Meena was recorded in the year 2005. 3. It is submitted that a will was executed by late Shri Ramnath Meena, on which a succession certificate has been obtained by the applicant Shri Naresh Kumar Meena from the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar vide order dated 14.02.2011. 4. It is further submitted that the mother of Shri Ramnath Meena had filed a suit against Smt. Kailashi Meena, in which an injunction order was passed. 5. We do not find any reference of the application for intervention, or documents, or any injunction order in the order passed by learned Single Judge. 6. The order dated 13.10.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, shows that no one had appeared for the petitioner. The name of Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Government Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, and name of Shri Hemant Taylor was shown for the respondent. We are informed that the Shri Hemant Taylor had appeared as junior to Shri Rajeev Surana. 6. The order dated 13.10.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, shows that no one had appeared for the petitioner. The name of Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Government Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, and name of Shri Hemant Taylor was shown for the respondent. We are informed that the Shri Hemant Taylor had appeared as junior to Shri Rajeev Surana. We do not find mention of any application or the documents or any argument made by Shri Hemant Taylor in the order of learned Single Judge. 7. In the circumstances, the remedy available to the appellants was to file a review petition, and not to challenge the order in appeal. This Court, in intra-court appeal, cannot entertain a plea, against the order, unless such plea was pressed in the Court and the relevant documents were shown. 8. The Special Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file the review petition, if he is so advised.