Om Prakash Bairwa And Ors vs Swami Kesh. Raj. Agri. University ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5587 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24803]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3718/2013

1. Om Prakash Bairwa S/o Shri Laxman Singh Bairwa, R/o E-14, C.V.A.S. Staff Colony, Deendayal Circle, Bikaner.

2. Manu Bharti S/o Shri Vijay Nagayan Maghur, R/o F-6, C.V.A.S. Staff Colony, Deendayal Circle, Bikaner.

3. Ripusudan Singh Rawal S/o Shri Janardan Singh Rawal, R/o Ratan Niwas, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner.

4. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Jagan Nath Prasad Sharma, R/ o C/o Shri R.L. Sharma, 4-E-500, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

5. Suresh Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Vishveshwar Vyas, R/o Dobhi Dohra, Near Soor Sagar, Bikaner.

6. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Prahlad Narain Sharma, R/o 6/243, Mukta Prasad Colony, Bikaner.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Swami Kesh. Raj. Agri. University, Bikaner through its Registrar.

2. Vice Chancellor, Swami Keshvanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.

3. Registrar, Swami Keshvanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Rajesh Punia



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

04/08/2023

I.A. Nos.3/2020, 4/2020, 5/2020 & 6/2020:

1. These applications have been filed by the petitioners inter-

alia praying that the respondent - University be directed to

completely clear their retiral dues.

[2023:RJ-JD:24803] (2 of 4) [CW-3718/2013]

2. Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned for the petitioners submitted

that though the petitioners have retired, the respondent-

University has withheld their retiral dues for no reason.

3. Mr. Rajesh Punia, learned counsel for the respondent -

University, on the other hand, submitted that by way of instant

writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated

08.02.2013, passed by the Registrar of the University, whereby

the order dated 05.01.2013, granting promotion to the petitioner

was cancelled and all the proceedings initiated pursuant to the

order dated 05.01.2013 were also cancelled.

4. He added that by virtue of the order dated 02.05.2013,

passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the effect and

operation of the order impugned dated 08.02.2013 has been

stayed, due to which the petitioners continued to work on their

respective promotional posts.

5. Mr. Punia expressed his concern that in case petitioners' writ

petition is ultimately dismissed, the additional salary, which the

petitioners have received during their term in office and the higher

pension, which they are getting, will be difficult to be recovered.

6. A chart has been produced before this Court by Mr. Punia,

indicating therein the amount of gratuity payable to the

petitioners and the recovery to be made up to 30.06.2023. The

same is taken on record.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the

applications and upon consideration of the chart so produced, this

Court is of the view that instead of passing any order on these

applications, it would be apt to decide the writ petition itself, as

[2023:RJ-JD:24803] (3 of 4) [CW-3718/2013]

the controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow

compass.

8. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners argued

that a simple look at the order dated 08.02.2013 shows that the

same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

inasmuch as, neither any opportunity of hearing was accorded to

the petitioners nor the order impugned contains any reason for

cancelling the order dated 05.01.2013.

9. Mr. Punia, learned counsel for the respondent - University

tried to justify the order impugned, while supplementing the

reasons and the circumstances under which the order impugned

has been passed.

10. This Court refused to enter into such arena, inasmuch, as

the order impugned does not reflect any reason or application of

mind.

11. It is a settled preposition of law in light of the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Mohinder

Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi &

Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 that the administrative order

should contain reasons and the reasons cannot be supplemented

or supplied later by way of affidavit or reply.

12. The impugned order dated 08.02.2013, passed by the

Registrar of the University, is hereby quashed and set aside.

13. It will be required of the respondent - University to issue a

detailed notice to the petitioners individually, indicating therein

the reasons for which they seek to cancel the order of promotion

granted to the petitioners on 05.01.2013. Said notice will be

issued on or before 31.08.2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:24803] (4 of 4) [CW-3718/2013]

14. Petitioners will be allowed three weeks' time to file their

reply to the notice, if served by the respondent - University. The

petitioners may file their reply along with the documents and law

on the subject, if so advised.

15. The Registrar or the competent authority of the respondent-

University shall thereafter provide opportunity of personal hearing

to the petitioners and then, pass a reasoned order under

intimation to the petitioners.

16. Petitioners right to challenge such order, if prejudicial to

their interest, shall stand reserved.

17. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have been working on

promotional post pursuant to interim order dated 02.05.2013,

passed by this Court, which has ceased to operate by virtue of

disposal of the present writ petition.

18. While passing the order of recovery, the respondents shall

take into account such facts and take a decision in accordance

with law.

19. The writ petition and the stay petition stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 15-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)