JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. D.B. Civil Misc Application No. 916/2019 1. Delay of 287 days in filing this appeal, is condoned. Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands disposed of. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1457/2019 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.10.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11796/2017 and the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition (Writ) No. 12/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant, modified the award passed by the Labour Court and directed to pay a sum of Rs. five lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. In the Review Petition a direction was passed that if the petitioner does not want to pay compensation, it would be open for the petitioner to reinstate the workman and give him salary for the actual period. 3. According to brief facts of the case, the appellant-State filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs :- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:- (i) declaring the impugned order dated 30-03-2017 as illegal and void and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the appeal filed by the Respondent-appellant may kindly be dismissed with costs; (ii) any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of humble Petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition.” 4. Respondent-Puran Ram had been terminated from service vide order dated 25.02.1994. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Alwar by the Labour Department vide Notification dated 30.11.1995. The learned Industrial Tribunal passed the award dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure1 to the writ petition). The termination order dated 25.02.1994 was held to be invalid and direction was issued for reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Alwar by the Labour Department vide Notification dated 30.11.1995. The learned Industrial Tribunal passed the award dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure1 to the writ petition). The termination order dated 25.02.1994 was held to be invalid and direction was issued for reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. The award reads as under :- ÞvizkFkhZ izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] jktdh; ßvß Js.kh vkS"k/kky;] [kSjFky] ftyk vyoj }kjk izkFkhZ iwj.kjke iq= gjhjke] tkfr gfjtu] fuoklh&xzke iksLV jlx.k] rglhy eq.Mkoj] ftyk voyj dh fnukad 25-02-94 dks dh xbZ lsok eqfDr mfpr vkSj oS/k ugha gSA izkFkhZ iqu% lsok esa fy, tkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok] lsok eqfDr dh fnukad ls fujUrj ekuh tkrh gSA izkFkhZ lsok eqfDr dh fnukad ls iqu% lsok esa fy, tkus rd osru dk 25 izfr’kr cdk;k osru ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 5. Aggrieved by the award, the State preferred Writ Petition which was decided vide order dated 01.10.2018. The award of the Labour Court was modified and following direction was passed :- “Counsel for the petitioner submits that after long period from 1994 till date, there would be no useful purpose served in allowing the respondent-workman to be reinstated as no work can be taken from him at this old age and the department is ready to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. In view thereof, taking into consideration 9 years of service rendered by the respondent-workman, it would be appropriate to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages of service etc. The said amount shall be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of two months. The award passed by the Labour Court accordingly modified in aforesaid terms. The writ petition stands disposed of.” 6. The appellant-petitioner preferred Review Petition against the order dated 01.10.2018, which was disposed of on 13.05.2019 with the following observations :- “I have considered the submissions and find that the circular issued by the State Government dated 20.3.2018 is to be applied in the matters relating to Lok Adalat as circular is binding on the State Government. However, so far as present case is concerned, taking into consideration 09 years services rendered by respondent, though he was wrongly removed, this court passed the order granting compensation of Rs.5.0 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. However, so far as present case is concerned, taking into consideration 09 years services rendered by respondent, though he was wrongly removed, this court passed the order granting compensation of Rs.5.0 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. If the petitioner does not want to pay compensation, it would always be open for the petitioner to reinstate the workman and give him salary for the actual period. With the aforesaid observations, review petition is disposed of.” 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 01.10.2018 and 13.05.2019, the present appeal has been filed. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant-State that the impugned orders are perverse. They have not been passed as per facts and material available on record. It was further argued that while awarding the compensation of Rs. five lakh to the respondent, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the settled position of law. The Review Petition was also disposed of without taking into consideration the Circular dated 20.03.2018 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, which deals with grant of compensation to the workman who cannot be reinstated in the Department and in lieu of that compensation needs to be granted based on workman’s age at the time of termination from service. The respondent was around 31 years of age at the time of termination of service, hence he falls under the second bracket of the compensation where he was supposed to receive compensation of Rs. one lakh fifty thousand as compensation, whereas in the impugned order the learned Single Judge has granted Rs. five lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which is contrary to the Circular dated 20.03.2018. Thus, the order passed by learned Single Judge is against the Circular dated 20.03.2018 issued by the State Government. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-State has limited the arguments to the extent of quantum of compensation, which has been awarded to the workman-respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Circular dated 20.03.2018. Relevant part of the aforesaid Circular reads as under:- “Accordingly, Finance Department approved the following norms of compensation : S.No. Age of the workmen at the time of termination of services Lump-sum compensation amount to be granted 1. 18 year to 24 years Rs. 2.00 Lacs 2. 25 year to 31 years Rs. 1.50 Lacs 3. 39 year and 38 years Rs. 18 year to 24 years Rs. 2.00 Lacs 2. 25 year to 31 years Rs. 1.50 Lacs 3. 39 year and 38 years Rs. 1.00 Lac 4. 39 year and above Rs. 50000/- All administrative Departments are hereby directed to take note of the above mentioned norms while pleading cases of workmen under the industrial Disputes Act. 1947, where reinstatement is not possible, in labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals.” 11. A perusal of the Circular dated 20.03.2018 reveals that this Circular had been issued to maintain uniformity in the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases which are settled during Lok Adalat. The Circular specifically mentions that all administrative departments are directed to take note of the above mentioned norms while pleading cases of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where reinstatement is not possible in Labour Court/Industrial Tribunals. Thus, it becomes clear that purpose of the Circular dated 20.03.2018 was to maintain uniformity in the matter of grant of compensation in cases decided by Labour Court / Industrial Tribunals in Lok Adalat. 12. Thus, in view thereof the orders passed by learned Single Judge dated 01.10.2018 and 13.05.2019 are just and proper and do not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Dismissed.