N. D. Bhootara vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 580 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 204/2017 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011

1. N.D.Bhootara s/o late Shri Shrikishan Bhootara, aged about 59 years, r/o Defence Colony, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.

2. Devendra Soni s/o Shri Tulsi Ram Soni, aged about 59 years, r/o near Maheshwari Marble, Pal Balaji Mandir Road, Jodhpur.

3. Veer Singh S/o Shri Budh Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o CF- 23, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

4. Maqsood Siddique S/o Shri Abdul Wazid, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Behind Stadium Cinema, Jodhpur.

5. Amar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Defence Colony, Near First Pulia, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

6. R.K. Purohit S/o Dr. P.M. Purohit, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Bal Kishan Building, Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur.

7. Subhash Bhati S/o Shri Jagdish Bhati, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 3, Parwati Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur.

8. Mahendra Patwa S/o Late Shri S.M. Patwa, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 42, Imaratiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

9. Gopal Bhandari S/o Shri Vijay Raj Bhandari, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Opposite Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.

10. Dinesh Kumar Gandhi s/o Shri Padam Chand Gandhi, aged about 63 years, r/o Near Narsingh Dhara, inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

11. Narsingh Chand Khinvsara s/o Shri Kapoor Chand Khinvsara, aged about 65 years, r/o Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

12. Rameshwar Chhangani S/o Shri Jai Kishan Chhangani, Aged About 56 Years, R/o CF-6, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

13. Arun Kumar Bohra S/o Shri Satyanarayan Bohra, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Piplia Ka Chowk, Jodhpur.

14. Ashok Purohit s/o Shri Govind Ram Purohit, aged about

(2 of 5) [WRW-204/2017]

57 years, r/o 25-F-28, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

15. Smt. Suraj Somani W/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 57 Years, Resident of Behind Kabra School, Paota, Jodhpur.

16. Pushpa Hans W/o Shri Jagdish Hans, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sri Ram Nagar, Near Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

---Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through the Registrar General.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Hemant Dutt
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional
                                   Advocate General
                                   Mr. G.R.Punia, Senior Advocate with
                                   Mr. Rajesh Punia



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                        Order

11/01/2021

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking

review of order dated 17.9.13 passed by a Bench of this Court,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners claiming

third selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 was partly

allowed in the following terms:

(3 of 5) [WRW-204/2017]

"29. In this conspectus of facts, in terms of the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998, as the case may be, the Court masters, in terms of paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5, the serving Court masters with pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 would be entitled to the third selection grade of Rs.6500-10500.

30. In view of the interpretation of paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5, we are unable to extend our concurrence to the claim of the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 made by the petitioners or that of Rs.10,000-15200 of the Assistant Registrar before the pay revision. The relevant notification(s) having limited the third selection grade in conformity with the stipulations embodied therein, any claim based thereon has to abide by the same.

31. The upshot of the above determination is thus that the appointment of a Stamp Reporter to the post of Court Master is not a promotion under the relevant Service Rules and the petitioners would be entitled to the selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 as stipulated by the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998 on completion of 27 years of service. However, in computing and releasing the actual financial benefits, the date of conferment of gazetted status to the post of Court Master would be the cut off date therefor, having regard to the ambit of applicability of the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998, as the case may be. The actual relief of third selection grade would, thus, stand limited upto 2.3.2009. The challenge to paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5 is negated.

The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment restricting the grant of

third selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 instead of

Rs.8000-13500, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition

(SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being SLP (Civil)

No.5932/2014 "Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr.". The State also preferred SLPs against the said judgment.

While, the notices were issued in the SLP filed by the petitioners,

the SLPs preferred by the State were dismissed by the Supreme

Court vide order dated 10.3.2014, observing that since all the

issues will be examined in the SLP filed by the petitioners, there is

no necessity to examine the issue in the SLP filed on behalf of the

(4 of 5) [WRW-204/2017]

State Government. The SLP preferred by the petitioners and other

SLPs preferred by the State of Rajasthan arising out of the order

passed in other writ petitions by this Court, were dismissed by the

Supreme Court by a common order dated 22.01.2015. The review

petition filed by the State seeking review of order dated

22.01.2015 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order

dated 26.07.2016. It is stated that the review petition filed on

behalf of the petitioners seeking review of order dated 22.01.2015

was dismissed for non prosecution/non removal of the defects.

Suffice it to say that the order under review dated 17.9.2013 has

attained finality.

3. The present review petition was filed by the petitioners

seeking review of the order dated 17.9.2013 before this Court on

12.9.2017, which is reported to be barred by limitation for 1452

days. It is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of

delay.

4. It is averred that subsequent to the decision of this Court

dated 17.9.2013, two notifications dated 30.8.2016 and

18.10.2016 have been issued by the Rajasthan High Court,

whereby the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner has

been made Gazetted and Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee

Examiner and Court Masters have been put in the same pay scale

and the grade pay. That apart, by subsequent orders dated

18.7.2017 and 26.8.2017 issued by the Registrar (Administration),

the petitioners pay were re-fixed by withdrawing the benefit of

Rule 26A of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. According to the

petitioners, since the review petition has been filed keeping in

view the subsequent events, the delay in filing the review petition

deserves to be condoned.

(5 of 5) [WRW-204/2017]

5. Obviously, if on account of the subsequent events, the

petitioners have become entitled for any relief, it gives rise to a

fresh cause of action and it is always open for the petitioners to

agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum and avail the

remedy available under the law. But on account of the subsequent

events referred supra, the concluded proceedings in the writ

petition cannot be re-opened. As a matter of fact, by way of

review petition, the petitioners want this Court to re-hear the

entire matter, which cannot be permitted.

6. In this view of the matter, no case for condonation of

inordinate delay in filing the review petition is made out and

therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay deserves

to be dismissed and consequently, the review petition deserves to

be dismissed as barred by limitation. Moreover, by way of review

petition, the attempt of the petitioners in claiming re-hearing of

the matter cannot be countenanced by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J 16-Aditya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)