JUDGMENT 1. - The respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar Sharma (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent employee) was initially appointed as LDC on daily wages basis on 2.1.1985. With certain breaks he was continued till July, 1986. The respondent employee was again given temporary appointment on the post of LDC on daily wages basis in the month of June, 1987 initially for six months. However, the same was extended upto 29.2.1988 by a separate order. After 29.2.1988, the services of the respondent employee were discontinued for want of further extension. 2. The respondent employee filed a writ petition before this court, challenging his termination on the ground that his termination of services is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). 3. This court, vide order dated 22.10.1992, partly allowed, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1261/90. While holding the termination of the services of the respondent employee as valid, this court observed that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the ID Act since 8 persons were appointed on temporary basis on 13.12.1988 without giving preference to the respondent employee. As such, this court directed to treat the respondent employee as appointed with effect from 13.12.1983. However, he was not allowed actual wages till date of joining. It was further clarified by this court that on availability of duly selected candidates from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the RPSC), the respondent employee shall have no right to continue in service. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 22.10.1992 passed by the court, the respondent employee was taken back in service. However, on availability of duly selected candidates from the RPSC, the services of the respondent employee were terminated vide order dated 19.2.1996. 5. The respondent employee, challenging his order of termination dated 19.2.1996, filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (the Tribunal) with a further prayer of regularisation of his services on the post of LDC in pursuance to the Notification issued by the State Government on 12.10.1992. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 21.5.1996 by quashing the impugned order dated 19.2.1996. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 21.5.1996 by quashing the impugned order dated 19.2.1996. The Tribunal further directed the department to consider the case of the respondent employee for regularisation under rule 25(10) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Service Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'), as amended vide notification dated 12.10.1992 and to give, all consequential benefits to the respondent employee from the date the his juniors were so given. 7. The appellant-department challenged the judgment dated 21-.5.1996 passed by the Tribunal by way of filing writ petition before this Court. However, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 26.7.1996. Hence, this special appeal by the department. 8. Mr. Sharma, counsel for the appellant-department has assailed the order of the Tribunal as well as that of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to adjudicate upon the matter of termination and the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters. Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). 9. That apart, Mr. Sharma has further submitted that the amendment made in the Rules of 1957 on 12.10.1992 could not have been made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because this court, while partly allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent employee, held that termination of the services of the respondent employee was valid and, under certain conditions, the respondent employee was directed to be taken back on duty till availability of duly selected candidates from the RPSC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Asopa, counsel for the respondent employee, has referred, to the definition of 'service matter' as provided under section 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (the Act of 1976) and has submitted that the present matter is covered under clause (v) of sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 1976. and has also cited some judgments of this court as well as Apex Court. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the entire material on record as also the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. We have also gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the respondent employee. 12. and has also cited some judgments of this court as well as Apex Court. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the entire material on record as also the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. We have also gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the respondent employee. 12. Admittedly, the services of the concerned employee were not continued beyond 29.2.1988. It was only under the orders of this court in the writ petition filed by the respondent employee that he was treated as In service w.e.f. 13.12.1988 with the conditions as imposed by this court in its judgment dated 22.10.1992. 13. For repeatation sake, this court held the termination of the services of the respondent employee as valid. However, only on the ground of, violation of section 25-H of the ID Act, the respondent employee was asked to be treated as in service from 13.12.1988 the date when 8 temporary employees were given appointment without considering the respondent employee. The court did not allow wages till the date of reinstatement. Moreover, the court specifically observed that on availability of duly selected candidates, the respondent employee will have no right to continue in service. 14. Vide notification dated 12.10.1992, the State Government inserted a new sub-rule 10 in rule 25 of the Rules of 1957 by which the provisions for regularisation was made for the persons appointed on ad-hoc/daily wages basis on the post of LDC during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 and were still working as such on the date of issuing of the notification. 15. The services of the respondent employee were terminated vide order dated 19.2.1996 on availability of duly selected candidates from the RPSC. The termination was purely a termination simplicitor and further in consonance with the terms/observations made by this court in the judgment dated 22.10.1992. 16. The words "service matter" has been defined under section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 and the same is quoted hereunder "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) ............... (d) ............... (e) ............... 16. The words "service matter" has been defined under section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 and the same is quoted hereunder "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) ............... (d) ............... (e) ............... (f) "Service matter" means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant (i) Seniority; (ii) Promotion; (iii) Confirmation; (iv) Fixation of pay; (v) An order denying or varying pay, allowance, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty; (vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; (vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty; (viii) Any other matter notified by the Government." 17. Bare perusal of above provisions shows that none of the clauses under sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the Act covers even termination simplicitor. 18. Since the word 'termination' has not been included in the definition i of `service matter' no appeal could have been filed against the order of termination before the Tribunal. 19. Even if the contention of the counsel for the respondent employee is accepted that the present matter is covered under clause (v) of sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the Act, as quoted above, in our opinion, the Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal in view of clear observations and conditions laid down by this court in its judgment dated 22.10.1992. Admittedly, the services of the concerned employee were terminated after availability of duly selected candidates from the RPSC. 20. In our opinion, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at all. Further the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction not only by setting aside the order of termination but also by directing regularisation of the concerned employee as well. 21. It was wholly unjustified and unreasonable on the part of the Tribunal to direct regularisation because in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent employee was not at all covered by the amendment made by the State Government vide notification dated 12.10.1992. 21. It was wholly unjustified and unreasonable on the part of the Tribunal to direct regularisation because in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent employee was not at all covered by the amendment made by the State Government vide notification dated 12.10.1992. The respondent employee was taken back in service conditionally as per the specific directions issued by this court vide judgment dated 22.10.1992 otherwise, the concerned employee was not in service as on 12.10.1992 to get the benefit of the amendment made in regard to regularisation. The Tribunal fell into patent error on the face of the record. As such, even otherwise, the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent employee are not relevant and applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as referred above. 23. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 26.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment dated 21.5.1996 passed by the Tribunal are quashed and set-aside. The appeal filed by the respondent employee before the Tribunal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******