Abdul Rasheed S/O Abdul Kareem vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1552 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 260/2021

Abdul Rasheed S/o Abdul Kareem, R/o - House No. 1/72,
Goshala, Sahu Nagar, Sawai Madhopur
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.      State     Of      Rajasthan,           Through             Secretary,   Home
        Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota
3.      The District Superintendent Of Police, Baran
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj and Mr. D.K. Purohit on behalf of Mr. P.K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

15/02/2022 D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.133/2021 and D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 260/2021:

There is a delay of 1266 days caused in filing the appeal.

The reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay

are not convincing. There is no justification for ignoring such an

inordinate delay.

Independent of the question of delay we have also examined

the grievance of the appellant-original petitioner with respect to

the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it

is against him. The facts on record would suggest that the

petitioner was engaged as a carpenter on probation for a period of

two years under an order dated 24.09.1996 by the State

(2 of 3) [SAW-260/2021]

Government. His period of probation was extended couple of

times. His service was terminated on 24.09.1999 on the ground of

unsatisfactory service. He challenged the said order before the

High Court by filing writ petition in the year 1999 which was

allowed in part by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated

18.07.2017. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the

department had at one stage issued a charge sheet but thereafter

proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner on the

ground of unsatisfactory service and therefore the order of

termination was not a simpliciter order but a stigmatic one. Since

no departmental enquiry was conducted in the opinion of the

learned Single Judge the order was vitiated. He therefore directed

reinstatement of the petitioner with all other consequential

benefits but 50% back wages. The State Government has

challenged this judgment in the appeal which is pending. Stay is

granted against payment of back wages but not reinstatement.

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner who seeks full back

wages.

We do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for

further enlargement of the relief. As noted his active period of

discharging duties was just about three years. His petition was

decided in the year 2017. Awarding back wages, that too 100% is

not an inviolable rule when the order of termination is set aside.

The same is part of the discretionary exercise by the Court. It is

unfortunate that the petition which was filed in time could be

decided merely 18 years later, presumably on account of the

pendency of the cases in the High Court. Be that as it may,

considering the tenure of active service put in by the petitioner

and the total period of back wages we do not find any reason to

(3 of 3) [SAW-260/2021]

interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the learned

Single Judge limiting the back wages to 50%.

In the result the appeal alongwith delay condonation

application is dismissed. Nothing stated in this order will prejudice

the State appeal in any manner. Pending applications stand

disposed of.

                                   (SUDESH BANSAL),J                                               (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   KAMLESH KUMAR/35









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)