Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 243 (RAJ)

Madan Lal Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

2012-02-01

ARUN MISHRA, PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - There is delay of 164 days in filing the intra-court appeal. For the reasons stated in the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit, the delay is condoned. I.A. No.45487/10 is disposed of. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. The intra-court appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 25.1.2010 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2485/96. 4. Facts in short are that while the appellant was working as against the post of Office Superintendent, he was reverted to the post of LDC for a period of four years with immediate effect with the rider that he would not be eligible for being promoted on the post of UDC for the said period and after the expiry of this period he cannot be promoted as UDC automatically as a matter of course but his case will have to be considered afresh for promotion and if he is otherwise found suitable for promotion he may be promoted as such. The order dated 7.4.1975 attained finality. The appellant attained the age of superannuation and retired on 29.2.1980. After 15 years of his retirement, he filed writ petition before this court bearing SBCWP No.1772/95 which was decided vide order dated 16.8.1995 directing the respondents to consider his representation and to pass appropriate order within three months. Thereupon, the appellant submitted representation to the District Judge, Bharatpur. The representation dated 1.11.1995 was rejected vide order dated 24.2.1996. Thereafter the appellant filed fresh writ petition No.2485/96 before the Single Bench which has been decided by the impugned order. The Single Bench has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the appellant for promotion on the post of Office Assistant from 7.4.1979 on the basis of his suitability and if he is found suitable then he may be promoted after reverting the official working on the post of Office Assistant from 7.4.1979 to 28.2.1980 with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the intra-court appeal has been preferred. 5. It is submitted by Ms. Anita Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that as per Rule-34(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the appellant ought to have been automatically restored without consideration of his suitability on the post of Office Assistant as reversion was ordered for four years. Aggrieved thereby, the intra-court appeal has been preferred. 5. It is submitted by Ms. Anita Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that as per Rule-34(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the appellant ought to have been automatically restored without consideration of his suitability on the post of Office Assistant as reversion was ordered for four years. The order dated 7.4.1975 was not served upon the appellant, as such, he could not question the same timely. Hence, direction be given to automatically restore the appellant on the post of Office Assistant. 6. Shri V.S. Gurjar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that the order dated 7.4.1975 was served upon the appellant and there is rider in the order that after reversion, the appellant would not be entitled for automatically promoted as UDC as a matter of course but he will be eligible for promotion if he is otherwise found suitable. Even otherwise also the petition was filed belatedly. Thus, no case for interference is made out. Substantial relief has already been given by the Single Bench. 7. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that no case for further indulgence in the matter is made out. The order dated 7.4.1975 makes it clear that after expiry of period of four years, the appellant would not be entitled for promotion as UDC automatically as a matter of course but he will be eligible for promotion if he is otherwise found suitable. The order was not questioned by the appellant for 15 years. As a matter of fact, his writ petition could have been dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. However, the Single Bench has granted relief against which no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. Direction was to consider the case of the appellant for promotion on the post of Office Assistant if he is found suitable. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the order which has been passed by the Single Bench. No ground for interference in the appeal is made out. It is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******