Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 603 (RAJ)

Ajay Sharma v. Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society

2021-03-15

I.MAHANTY, SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : DB CIVIL Misc. Application No. 928/2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No. 982/2019 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Special Appeal (writ) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25-9-2018 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4419/1999. 3. In the said writ petition, the Hon'ble Single Judge at the very outset took into consideration the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner namely Mr. Bhagwan Singh pleads 'No Instruction' and he does not put his appearance on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was filed on behalf of 10 petitioners. The writ petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 were represented through counsel Mr. V.B. Srivastava. He prayed that he be allowed to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10. It would be pertinent to mention that the present Special Appeal has been filed by the original writ petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for non prosecution, since the petitioner did not want to press the writ petition, and technically, other petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 had not filed any affidavit in support of their averments. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, it is important to note that after the dismissal of the writ petition (4199/1999) by the learned Single Judge, order of termination of services was issued against original petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10. They challenged their dismissal by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 24458/2018 and in compliance of interim order dated 31-10-2018, the petitioners- appellants herein continued to remain in employment and orders of their dismissal has been kept in abeyance. 5. In the light of circumstances, noted herein above, we consider that ends of justice would be sub-served if the present appellants, the original petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4419/1999, are allowed to file affidavit in support of their writ petition and they are allowed to prosecute their writ petition. 5. In the light of circumstances, noted herein above, we consider that ends of justice would be sub-served if the present appellants, the original petitioners No. 8, 9 and 10 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4419/1999, are allowed to file affidavit in support of their writ petition and they are allowed to prosecute their writ petition. Apart from the above, while remanding the writ petition, we further direct that the writ petition No. 4419/1999 shall be heard along with the writ petition No. 24458/2018. 6. With the above observations and directions, the present Special Appeal is disposed of.