Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ram Chandra Jat S/O Sh. Sheesh Ram Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 47/2022
Ram Chandra Jat S/o Sh. Sheesh Ram Jat, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Vill. Kushumdeshar Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Co-
Operative Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar Co-Operative Department, Nehru Sehkar
Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Official Liquidator, Shriganganagar Cotton Complex
Ltd., Shriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan through VC For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 19/01/2022 The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2021 has filed the present special appeal. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that appellant was engaged as operator in the year 1996 in Sriganganagar Cotton Complex which went into liquidation in the year 2002. In October 2003 the respondent Panchayati Raj Department decided to place the surplus employees as gram sewaks' on deputation. After lapse of three years a revision petition was filed by the appellant under (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:54 AM) (2 of 3) [SAW-47/2022] Section 107 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act before the Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 17.10.2006. Being aggrieved by the said action and non-
compliance of the order dated 17.10.2006 a writ petition was filed by the appellant and the same was dismissed on 30.11.2021 on the ground of delay and latches.
We have scanned the records and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant.
The primary contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition on the sole ground of delay inasmuch as bye- passing the submission that in pursuance to high court's order dated 17.10.2006, the rejection was given as late as in the year 2008 by the respondents and he immediately filed the present writ petition in the year 2009. On perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that justified reasons were considered by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the present writ petition. Firstly, it was considered that the petitioner was engaged as a temporary labour in the year 1996 wherein he remained absent from his duties during the complete tenure and hardly worked for 34 days and his name was removed from muster roll as back as on 17.6.98. Further, it is observed that the petitioner approached this Court under the writ jurisdiction in the year 2009 almost after three years of the passing of Tribunal's order. Thirdly, even if for the sake of argument, we assume that the cause of action in approaching this Court arose in the year 2008 of rejection of the representation then also for the present, the appellant is 50 years of age and is virtually touching the age of retirement and his (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:54 AM) (3 of 3) [SAW-47/2022] conduct for the reasons stated above is not justified for interference by this Court under equity jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
B.M. Gandhi/29
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:15:54 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)