Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 984 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vidhya Pracharani Sabha

2013-05-13

AMITAVA ROY, P.K.LOHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - On Misc. Application No.35/2013 The instant application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed for condonation of delay of 508 days in preferring the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9434/2009 granting the following reliefs: "Consequently, this writ petition is similarly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant approval and release the grant in aid to the petitioner-Vidhya Pracharani Sabha, Old Station Road, Udaipur as under:- (1) on the arrears resulting from the enhancement of salaries under the 6th Pay Commission; (2) on the arrears of salary paid by it to its employees as a result of revisions of pay scale in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998; (3) on arrears of dearness allowance to its employees as a result of grant of additional installments of dearness allowance; (4) on the amount of selection grades admissible to the employees under order dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State Government prescribing for grant of selection grade; (5) on leave encashment for which the employees are entitled at par with employees of the State Government." 2. We have heard Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants-appellants and Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 3. According to the applicants, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011, the same along with the comments of the learned Government Counsel was forwarded to the officer-in-charge and then to the Directorate, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur for passing appropriate orders. The documents received on 2.9.2011 were, thereafter, forwarded to the State Government for necessary decision as to whether an appeal should be filed or not. This was done on 19.9.2011. The Standing Committee constituted for the purpose in its meeting held on 23.9.2011 took a decision to send the file to the Finance Department, which was done on 3.10.2011. After making certain queries, the Finance Department recommended on 15.12.2011 that an appeal be filed. The file was thereafter forwarded to the Law Department on 16.12.2011 for granting appropriate sanction. The Law Department on 8.5.2012 opined that no appeal be filed. 4. After making certain queries, the Finance Department recommended on 15.12.2011 that an appeal be filed. The file was thereafter forwarded to the Law Department on 16.12.2011 for granting appropriate sanction. The Law Department on 8.5.2012 opined that no appeal be filed. 4. According to the applicants, thereafter, notices in the contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 were issued and the same having been received, the matter was referred to the Finance Department, which on 2.1.2013 granted financial sanction subject to the decision in the appeal. The applicants have asserted that by implication it was decided that an appeal ought to be filed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011. The learned Additional Advocate General, Jodhpur having been approached, the appeal was eventually filed and in the process, the delay did occur. 5. The respondent in its reply apart from pleading inordinate delay and absence of any explanation whatsoever for condonation thereof, has averred that the issues adjudicated in the impugned judgment & order dated 18.7.2011 were sub-justice in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya v. State of Rajasthan and ors. . and the decision rendered therein on 25.10.2007 was challenged by the applicants in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.02696/2009, which was dismissed on 27.8.2010. The Special Leave Petition filed by the applicants before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also disposed of on 4.7.2011 with the following modification: "Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The short grievance which has been articulated by learned counsel for the State is that the Rules came into force from 1st January, 1993 and the benefit could not have been given from earlier period. We agree with learned counsel for the State. We modify the impugned judgment accordingly and direct that the respondent(s) would be entitled to benefits from 1st January 1993. We are quite conscious of the fact that we are passing this order without giving notice to the respondent (s) because the controversy is very limited and giving notice would cause much greater financial hardship for the respondent (s). In this view of the matter, we are passing this order in absence of the respondent (s). In case the respondent(s) is/are still aggrieved then the respondent(s) would be at liberty to approach this Court. With this modification, the appeals are disposed of. No costs." 6. In this view of the matter, we are passing this order in absence of the respondent (s). In case the respondent(s) is/are still aggrieved then the respondent(s) would be at liberty to approach this Court. With this modification, the appeals are disposed of. No costs." 6. It has thus asserted that even otherwise on merits, the applicants have no case and that the highly belated appeal has been filed to avoid orders in the contempt petition filed by the respondent highlighting deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011. 7. Whereas Mr. Jangid has submitted that the delay ought to be condoned as in view of the formulation of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules"), the respondent is not entitled to the reliefs as granted by the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011, Mr. Singhvi has urged that the issue cannot be reopened in the teeth of the order dated 4.7.2011 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in connection therewith. Apart therefrom, it was contended that in absence of any satisfactory explanation whatsoever, the huge delay ought not to be condoned. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 had been passed by recording the admission on behalf of the applicants that the issues raised therein were covered by the decision rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya v. State of Rajasthan and ors. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera and ors. v. State of West Bengal ( (2013) 4 SCC 52 ) has been relied upon as well. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record necessary for deciding the instant application, we are constrained to sustain the objections raised on behalf of the respondent. Not only the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 in clear terms records that the applicants had admitted that the issues under consideration stood covered by the judgment passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya v. State of Rajasthan and ors. , the application also discloses that though the Law Department of the State on 8.5.2012 had opined against filing of an appeal the accompanying appeal eventually was filed on 12.2.2013 i.e. after about 9 months therefrom. , the application also discloses that though the Law Department of the State on 8.5.2012 had opined against filing of an appeal the accompanying appeal eventually was filed on 12.2.2013 i.e. after about 9 months therefrom. This is presumably after notice of the contempt petition filed by the respondent had been issued by this Court. 9. The averments in the application apart from the above considerations demonstrably reveal that the applicants had not dealt with the issue with the required alacrity and expedition, as expected. Further, having regard to the period of limitation for preferring the appeal, even if some kind of relaxation is accorded as the State is an impersonal machinery and has to act through its departments and functionaries thereof, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no sufficient cause has been preferred to explain the delay of 508 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amalendu Kumar Bera (supra) has propounded that if the State's action in preferring appeal is marred by serious laches and negligence, a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay is not warranted. 10. Having regard to the finality in adjudication qua the issues involved in face of the order dated 4.7.2011 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the concerned Special Leave Petition and the attendant facts and circumstances and further, the absence of any sufficient cause mandated as a pre-requisite in Section 5 of the Act for condonation of delay, in our estimate, the instant application is devoid of merit. It is thus rejected.D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.78/2013 11. As the application under section 5 of the Act for condonation of delay has been rejected, consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******