Rajasthan High Court
Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Niwas ... vs The Director General Of Police on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 310/2021
Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Niwas Yadav, Aged About 40 Years,
Working As H.c. No. 78, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Inspector General Of Police (Headquarter) Phq,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG
Mr. Udit Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment
20/12/2021
This appeal is filed against the order dated 25/02/2021
passed by the learned single judge in Misc. Application No.
31/2021. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-
Appellant is an employee of the Police Department in the
State Government. He was granted promotion on the post of Head
Constable in the year 2014-15. According to him such promotion
should have been granted in the year 2012-13. With this case, he
went to the Service Appellate Tribunal. His appeal was allowed.
Judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the government in the
writ petition. In the writ petition the employee filed an application
stating that he wishes to withdraw the appeal and not seek benefit
arising out of the appellate judgment. The writ petition was
(2 of 3) [SAW-310/2021]
therefore disposed of by the learned single judge by an order
dated 15/02/2021. In this order it was recorded as under:-
"Counsel for the respondents does not press his claim as he
had submitted before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.2083/2015 and prays to allow
him to withdraw his appeal before the Tribunal.
Keeping in view, the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondents, the order passed by the
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated
27.05.2019 is quashed and set aside, the order impugned
before the Tribunal is restored."
Soon thereafter the employee had filed the misc. application
before the learned single judge and urged that his intention was to
withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal for filing fresh application
before the Tribunal with new facts. This application was dismissed
by the learned single judge wide order dated 25/02/2021
recording that no such liberty was reserved and none can
therefore be granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The record
would suggest that the employee had succeeded before the
Appellate Tribunal and it was the government which had
challenged the order in the writ petition which was pending before
the learned single judge. Ordinarily therefore, there would be no
occasion for the employee to move the High Court and suggest
that he wishes to withdraw the appeal which had already resulted
in an order in his favour. However, since there is some confusion
about the exact meaning that the employee wanted to convey the
learned single judge and learned single judge having foreclosed
his right to file fresh proceedings, we find it appropriate to revive
the writ petition of the State Government. This would enable the
State Government to pursue its challenge on merits and would
enable the employee to defend the order passed by the Tribunal in
(3 of 3) [SAW-310/2021]
his favour. For such purpose the orders dated 15/02/2021 and
25/02/2021 are set aside. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1431/2020 is
revived and would be placed before the learned single judge for
disposal on merits.
The appeal is disposed of.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Kumar Goyal/BMG/37
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
