JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has come up upon application filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding the writ petition in the light of order dated 06.07.2008 passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Appeal No.628/2001. 2. In support of his application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and one Motiram Bunkar were provided appointment vide order dated 04.03.1994 vide Annex.-1. Thereafter, vide order Annex.-3 dated 20.10.1999, services of the petitioner and Motiram Bunkar were terminated. Motiram Bunkar preferred writ petition before this Court at Jaipur Bench against his illegal termination from service. Said writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5759/1999 and learned Single Judge decided the writ petition vide order dated 03.05.2001. Thereafter, special appeal was preferred by the respondents and Division Bench of this Court (at Jaipur Bench) dismissed said D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.628/2001 vide judgment dated 06.07.2010. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after judgment of the learned Single Judge, Motiram Bunkar was taken back on duty vide order dated 19.04.2005 and back-wages were also allowed to him vide Annex.-9 and he is in service till today which is evident from order dated 03.02.2007. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed civil suit against the same termination order before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner and the said civil suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated 20.01.2004, by which, the civil Court set aside the order of termination dated 20.10.1999. Against said judgment, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, Bikaner and the same was transferred to the Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner and said appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) vide judgment dated 04.05.2007 on the ground that there is no jurisdiction left with the civil Court to adjudicate upon service matter. The Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner allowed the appeal of the respondents against judgment and decree dated 03.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bikaner in Civil Case No.645/2003. The petitioner after decision of the appeal preferred this writ petition immediately in the year 2007 and prayed that his termination from the services is illegal. 5. The Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner allowed the appeal of the respondents against judgment and decree dated 03.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bikaner in Civil Case No.645/2003. The petitioner after decision of the appeal preferred this writ petition immediately in the year 2007 and prayed that his termination from the services is illegal. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Motiram Bunkar whose services were terminated by the same order whereby services of the petitioner were terminated and, now, judgment in the case of Motiram Bunkar has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, therefore, the controversy involved in the writ petition filed by the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Motiram Bunkar's case. In this view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against illegal termination order dated 20.10.1999 may be allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.628/2001, decided on 06.07.2010. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that this writ petition was preferred in the year 2007 after 13 years of passing order impugned dated 20.10.1999, therefore, on this ground alone this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the appointment of the petitioner was in project and, now, at present no project is in existence, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition deserves to be rejected. Further, it is pointed out that before approaching this Court the petitioner availed wrong remedy by filing civil suit and learned civil Court decreed the suit of the petitioner but said judgment was set aside by the appellate Court in appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, therefore, now, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that respondents are not disputing the fact that Motiram Bunkar's writ petition filed against the same impugned order has been allowed by learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench and, so also, said judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench vide judgment dated 06.07.2010 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.628/2001. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner's case is not similar to the case of Motiram Bunkar. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents that this writ petition has been filed after 13 years has no substance because before approaching this Court the petitioner availed remedy of civil suit but, ultimately, the appellate Court held that there is no jurisdiction left with the civil Court. In this view of the matter, the time consumed in civil suit cannot be treated to be delay for adjudication of the present writ petition. So also, this writ petition cannot be thrown away on the ground of delay in approaching this Court. 8. With regard to the next contention of learned counsel for the respondents that at present there is no post in existence with the Board I am of the opinion that once similarly situated person has been absorbed vide order dated 03.02.2007, then, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled for the same relief. In this view of the matter, while following the judgment rendered in Motiram Bunkar's case, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.10.1999 is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with 50% back-wages. 9. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******