Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 254 (RAJ)

Gautam Chand Loonkar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-18

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.2.1991 (Annex.12) issued by the Section Officer, Art & Culture Department, Govt. of Rajasthan requiring the Secretary of Respondent No.2 - Akadami to remove the petitioner from service. 2. When the writ petition came up before this Court, by interim order dated 1.4.1991 the operation of order dated 27.2.1991 (Annex.12) was stayed by this Court. 3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, indicating that by order dated 4.1.2010, five posts at the Akadami (respondent No.2) were regularized including the post of Accountant held by the petitioner and pursuant thereto, by order dated 10.6.2011 (Annex.13), the services of the petitioner have been made permanent w.e.f. the date of his appointment i.e. 11.1.1989. 4. Where after, pay of the petitioner has been fixed by order dated 13.8.2011 (Annex.14) and based on selection grade granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service, the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed by order dated 6.11.2012 (Annex.15). 5. Further, as the petitioner in the meanwhile attained the age of superannuation on 8.7.2017, w.e.f. 31.7.2017, he has been superannuated and by order dated 26.7.2017 (Annex.16) issued by respondent No.2, it has been indicated that consequent to petitioner's superannuation, all required compliances would be made after the decision in the pending writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that on account of subsequent developments, whereby, the post held by the petitioner has been regularized under the directions of the State Government dated 4.1.2010 and petitioner has been made permanent from the date of his initial appointment by order dated 10.6.2011, the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of order dated 27.2.1991 (Annex.12) has been rendered in fructuous. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as terminal benefits/benefits pursuant to orders (Annexs.14 & 15) etc. to the petitioner have been made dependent on the decision of the present writ petition, he is now entitled to all the benefits as available to him on account of his employment with the respondents and having superannuated on 31.7.2017. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as terminal benefits/benefits pursuant to orders (Annexs.14 & 15) etc. to the petitioner have been made dependent on the decision of the present writ petition, he is now entitled to all the benefits as available to him on account of his employment with the respondents and having superannuated on 31.7.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that once the orders (Annex.13 to Annex.15) have been passed during the pendency of the present writ petition, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the above fact situation, wherein, the order (Annex.12) passed by the respondent has lost its efficacy on account of passing of the subsequent orders dated 4.1.2010 by the Government and 10.6.2011 (Annex.13) by the respondent No.2, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been rendered infructuous. 10. It goes without saying that on account of orders (Annex.13 to Annex.15) passed during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from the said orders. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.