Sita Ram Verma Son Of Shri Suraj Mal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 295 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 559/2021

Sita Ram Verma S/o Shri Suraj Mal Verma
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. V.L. Mathur with
                               Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

10/01/2023

In compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.10.2003

passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2142/1998-Sita Ram Verma

Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., directing the respondents to

accord appointment to the petitioner-appellant within 15 days of

the receipt of the copy of the order, the appointment was issued to

the petitioner-appellant on 11.01.2005 i.e. much after expiry of 15

days. However, in similar circumstances, one Moti Lal Bairwa was

given immediate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner-appellant

is claiming seniority as directed from the date similarly placed

persons joined the duties, which has not been granted to him.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking

seniority from the date Moti Lal Bairwa was appointed, has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner-

appellant is entitled to seniority and pay fixation from the date his

juniors were allowed to join.

(2 of 3) [SAW-559/2021]

The submission is that once the learned Single Judge has

held that the petitioner-appellant was entitled to seniority as well

as pay fixation from the date his juniors were allowed to join i.e.

Moti Lal Bairwa, the petition could not have been dismissed.

Mr. S.S. Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General

submits that the petitioner-appellant had preferred a contempt

petition and the same was dismissed and, therefore, he is not

entitled to maintain this petition.

In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner-

appellant has relied upon a judgment rendered by Supreme Court

in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C.

Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, wherein it is observed that once

a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed

and implemented without any reservation. Such direction of the

Court cannot be made ineffective merely for the reason that the

contempt petition has been dismissed. In such circumstances, the

aggrieved party is entitled to a fresh substantive petition claiming

the benefits under the earlier judgment.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be

allowed time to seek instructions if non-issuance of the

appointment letter within the time is on account of delay or laches

on part of the respondents or it is on account of non-completion of

the necessary formalities by the petitioner-appellant.

He may file an affidavit explaining the delay as to why the

directions contained in the order dated 15.10.2003 were not

implemented immediately as the appointment letter was issued

much later on 11.01.2005. Learned Additional Advocate General

would also inform as to why seniority of the petitioner-appellant

has not been considered and fixed from the date similarly placed

(3 of 3) [SAW-559/2021]

persons had joined the duties. The affidavit may be filed within

two weeks.

List immediately after two weeks.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                               (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

                                   ANIL KUMAR GOYAL/RAJAT/54









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)