Secretary Managing Committee A vs Smt Avani Mathur
2023 Latest Caselaw 5381 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:24893]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 49/2008

The Secretary, Managing Committee, Arya Vidyapeeth Society,
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1. Smt Avani Mathur wife of Shri Tapendra Johari, Resident of A-
44, Janta Colony, Jaipur
2. The Chairman, Arya Vidhyapeeth Society, Bhusawar, through
Suresh Chand Gupta Son of Master Adityandra Gupta, R/o Arya
Samaj Road, Bharatpur
3. The Director, College Education, Rajasthan Jaipur
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
                       Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                     27/09/2023

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2006 passed by

Additional District Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur in

Appeal No.04/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has

been dismissed and the orders dated 15.12.2005 & 27.03.2006

passed by Executing Court in Execution Case No.48/2008,

dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner have been

maintained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent

No.1 was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis on 28.08.1995 for 3

months, which was extended for further three months. After

completion of 6 months, service of respondent No.1 was

terminated on 28.2.1996. Respondent No.1 had challenged the

[2023:RJ-JP:24893] (2 of 3) [CR-49/2008]

said order before learned Rajasthan Non Government Educational

Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal

had set aside the order of the termination and directed petitioner

to reinstate services of the respondent No.1 and gave her salary

and other dues. Respondent No.1 filed the execution petition

before learned Executing Court and the Executing Court vide order

dated 15.12.2005 directed the petitioner to give appointment to

respondent No.1 on substantive basis and also directed the

petitioner to submit the amended chart of due salary from

28.02.1996. After that, the Executing Court passed the order

dated 27.03.2006 directing the petitioner to appoint the

respondent No.1 on substantive basis within 7 days and to pay

Rs.11,00,298.05/- to the respondent No.1 as per the revised chart

within 7 days from the said date. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that the matter before the Tribunal was for

reinstatement of respondent No.1 on ad-hoc basis because

respondent No.1 had challenged the order of her termination. So,

learned Executing Court had exercised the power beyond the

jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent

No.1 on substantive basis and to pay Rs.11,00,298.05/-. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.1

was appointed on ad-hoc basis. So, orders of the learned

Executing Court dated 15.12.2005, 27.03.2006 and order dated

03.08.2006 passed by the appellate court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that learned Executing Court rightly came to the

conclusion that appointment of respondent No.1 was substantive

[2023:RJ-JP:24893] (3 of 3) [CR-49/2008]

and the Tribunal had quashed the termination order on account of

the substantive appointment of respondent No.1. So, learned

Executing Court rightly ordered to appoint respondent No.1 on

substantive vacancy and rightly directed to pay

Rs.11,00,298.05/-, which was also maintained by the appellate

court. So, present revision petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1.

It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 had

challenged the termination order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

vide order dated 05.07.1996 had set aside the termination of

respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was appointed on substantive

basis or temporary basis, was not a matter before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal merely observed that appointment of the respondent

No.1 seems to be substantive but the Tribunal had not directed to

appoint respondent No.1 on substantive basis. So, in my

considered opinion, learned Executing Court exceeded its

jurisdiction and directed to appoint the respondent No.1 on

substantive basis and also committed error in directing to pay due

salary as a substantive appointee. So, orders dated 15.12.2005

and 27.03.2006 of the Executing Court and order dated

03.08.2006 passed by the appellate court deserve to be set aside.

The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The

orders dated 15.12.2005 and 27.03.2006 of the Executing Court

and order dated 03.08.2006 of the appellate court are set aside.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)