State Of Rajasthan vs Leeladhar Rajpurohit
2022 Latest Caselaw 3098 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 611/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Inspector General Of Police (Hq), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

1. Leeladhar Rajpurohit S/o Mohan Lal Rajpurohit, Behind Roadway Depot, Purohiton Ka Bas, Indra Colony, Bikaner.

2. Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG through V.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

28/02/2022

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 26.03.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12285/2018.

Office has reported that there is delay of 67 days. However,

it would appear that since the judgment was passed during the

corona virus situation, the delay would be covered under the

moratorium period of limitation provided by the Supreme Court

due to corona.

We notice that the writ petition was filed by the State

Government to challenge the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil

Services Appellate Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal had

decided two cases together. In one of them, in the case of Smt.

Raju Devi, the learned Single Judge had taken the same view,

upon which the State had filed appeal, which was dismissed by the

(2 of 3) [SAW-611/2021]

Division Bench on 28.10.2021 in the case of State of Rajasthan

and Another vs. Smt. Raju Devi and Another (D.B. Special

Appeal (W) No.544/2021) by speaking order, which reads as

under:-

"This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2021 passed in CWP No.13472/2018.

There is some delay in filing this appeal, however, respondent No.1, contesting party, is widow of deceased Government Servant. In any case, considering corana virus situation, Courts look at the delay more leniently. Under the circumstances, we have preferred to hear the Government counsel on merits of the appeal without troubling respondent No.1.

We have noted that the State Government has challenged the judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.13742/2018, which was filed by the present appellants to challenge the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are that the husband of respondent No.1 was engaged as a part time cook by the police department. He approached the High Court by filing the writ petition in the year 1995 seeking regularization. His petition came to be decided by order dated 26.05.1995 with the direction to grant him lowest pay scale attached to the Class-IV post and to consider his case for regularization in light of the decision of the High Court in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (Writ Petition No.3453/1994). The Government challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge by way of filing intra-court appeal, which was dismissed. Despite these developments, the Government did not take effective steps for considering the case of the employee for regularization. He thereupon approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was decided by order dated 27.08.2002 permitting the employee to file a representation which the Government would decide. Despite this direction, since the Government did not consider his representation, the employee approached the Tribunal again in which proceedings, the Tribunal passed the order dated 12.12.2017 and directed the Department to grant regularization to the employee with all consequential benefits including for grant of selection grade as per the Government circulars. The Tribunal also directed that if the due amount is

(3 of 3) [SAW-611/2021]

not released within three months, the same would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

In the petition filed by the State Government, the learned Single Judge noted that the Government had sanctioned the post for the employee concerned subject to decision of the special appeal filed by the Government against the order dated 26.05.1995, which came to be dismissed later on. Thus, sanctioning of the post subject to outcome of the appeal lost its effect. For all practical purposes, the employee rendered services on regular sanctioned post. On such grounds, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal required no interference. However, with respect to the direction for paymemt of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, learned Single Judge reduced the same to 6% per annum.

We do not find that in the present case, the appeal of the State Government can be entertained. As noted above, the employee had been moving from one forum to another for benefit of regularization which the Government denied to him right from 1995 till approaching the Tribunal in the year 2017 and even thereafter when the State Government moved the High Court, the employee went on battling for the benefits. In the meantime he expired and the litigation was pursued by his widow. This apart, as noted by the learned Single Judge when the High Court gave certain direction in favour of the employee in the judgment dated 26.05.1995, the Government also sanctioned a post for him. This sanction was subject to outcome of the appeal filed by the Government and once such appeal was dismissed, the sanction became unconditional. Thus, the employee worked on regular sanctioned post for decades together. Pursuant to the observations and directions of the High Court, the Government ought to have considered his case timely for regularization. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly held that he should get the benefits of regularization with all consequential benefits.

The appeal is dismissed."

Under the circumstances, this appeal along with connected

applications are dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

7-a.asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)