JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 09.01.2014 (Annex.4) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur rejecting his appeal against order dated 14.11.2002 (Annex.9) to the writ petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that initially petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant on 02.11.1981 but he was subsequently terminated from the services on 01.01.1985 followed by a fresh appointment on 02.1.1985 which came to an end on 30.06.1985. Although, petitioner continued to serve the respondent- department but for certain artificial breaks. Be that as it may, after 1985, petitioner continued to serve respondent department and also cleared the departmental examination for facilitating his regularization in services w.e.f. 07.12.1989. At the behest of petitioner, endeavour was made for seeking condonation of interruption in service by invoking Rule 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'Rules of 1951'), which is pari materia to Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996')- When the efforts made by petitioner for condonation of 90 days' interruption in service did not fructify to his advantage for quite some time, he filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as SBCW No.2416/1997. Learned Single Judge of this Court by its judgment and order dated 26.11.1998 dismissed the petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Division Bench. Before Division Bench, the counsel appearing for the petitioner craved liberty to approach State Government by way of submitting a representation under Rule 212 of the Rules of 1951 and Rule 27 of the Rules of 1996. Acceding to the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Division Bench passed following order :- "At this stage, a request was made by the learned counsel Shri Dave for the appellant that under the Rule 212 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the appellant petitioner is entitled to apply before the State Govt. for condoning the break in service, while in service. Therefore, he wants to make appropriate representation to the competent authority. He can do so within one month from today. If such representation is made within one month then the same shall be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority as early as possible preferably within three months from the receipt thereof. Therefore, he wants to make appropriate representation to the competent authority. He can do so within one month from today. If such representation is made within one month then the same shall be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority as early as possible preferably within three months from the receipt thereof. Stay petition is also dismissed." 4. After decision of the Division Bench, petitioner submitted a representation (Annex.8) for claiming the desired relief. The representation of the petitioner was considered but rejected on 14.11.2002 (Annex.9) precisely for the reason that despite availing three chances he has not qualified the requisite examination conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 5. Feeling dismayed with order dated 14.11.2002 (Annex.9), petitioner invoked appellate jurisdiction of learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal by the order impugned rejected his appeal solely relying on the verdict of learned Single Judge passed in earlier writ petition and further dilating on the merits of case. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the appeal did not consider a very vital fact that petitioner has already qualified departmental examination and being a specially abled person his case merits consideration for condonation of interruption in service sympathetically. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. 7. Upon examining the impugned order, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal was essentially swayed by the observations of the learned Single Judge and has not at all cared to examine the true purport of Rule 212 of the Rules of 1951 and Rule 27 of the Rules of 1996. Further, the learned Tribunal has also not made endeavor to examine Rule 27 of the Rules of 1996 and the Government decisions in this behalf, which envisage condonation of break in service under certain special circumstances. A very vital fact that petitioner was appointed under handicapped quota was also not paid any heed by the learned Tribunal while rejecting his appeal. It goes without saying that after passing of order Annex.9, it has furnished a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and that ought to have been examined by the learned Tribunal in right perspective. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. It goes without saying that after passing of order Annex.9, it has furnished a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and that ought to have been examined by the learned Tribunal in right perspective. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Consequently, the same is set at naught and the matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal for deciding appeal of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. Learned Tribunal is also expected to decide the appeal de novo within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order.