Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 182 (RAJ)

Kapil Kumar Jyani v. State (Personnel Dep)

2017-01-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan dismissing the petitioner’s review petition under Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1958’) on the ground that the review petition was filed not maintainable for reason of alleged by having been filed against the impugned order dated 28.07.2010 beyond the limitation of three months. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the date of receipt of the order dated 28.07.2010, i.e. 04.09.2010-Annexure-7 of the petition. It has been submitted that the review petition was admittedly filed on 03.12.2010 well within the three months limitation from the date of the receipt of the order dated 28.07.2010 on 04.09.2010. provided under Rule 33 of Rules of 1958. 3. The case set up by the petitioner has not been seriously opposed by the counsel for the respondent as it could not be in view of the incontrovertible facts on record admitted to his counsel for the petitioner wherefrom it is evident that the order dated 28.07.2010 put to challenge in the review petition 4/2 33 of the Rules of 1958 was received by the petitioner on 04.09.2010 and the review filed within three months thereof on 03.12.2010. Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 excludes from computation of limitation time till receipt of a copy of the impugned order. In terms of Section 12 of the Act of 1963, the period till 04.09.2010 when the copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner was liable to be excluded for computing limitation of three months for filing a review under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 so reckoned, the review petition filed on 03.12.2010 was within three months of the impugned order dated 28.07.2010 and hence within limitation. Consequently, it is evident that the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 for reason of it outside limitation is misdirected and perverse to the facts on record. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reviewing Authority for consideration of the petitioner’s petition on merits in accordance with law. The review petition be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order within the period of eight months from today.