Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar Soni on 14 November, 2008
Author: H.R. Panwar
Bench: H.R. Panwar
1
D.B.CIVIL RESTORATION APPLICTION NO.721/2005 DR(J)
IN
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.510/1998
(State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Soni)
Date of Order :: 14.11.2008
HON'BLE MR.H.R. PANWAR, J.
HON'BLE MR. KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI, J.
Mr.N.K.Mehta, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the appellants.
This restoration application is barred by limitation of 857 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants along with an affidavit of Officer-in-charge of the case.
We have heard learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the appellants as also gone through the reasons for filing the restoration application after a lapse of 857 days.
The order of learned Single Judge dated 12th February, 1998 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3095/1990 came to be challenged by way of an appeal on 6th May, 1998 and thereafter, the matter came up before this Court on several occasions. In spite of the order dated 30th October, 2001, 26th February, 2002 and 16th April, 2002, the appellants 2 did not care to file the list of documents and deposit initial charges. The matter came up before the Bench on 23rd August, 2002 but no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, counsel for the appellants was granted one weeks time to do the needful failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 23rd August, 2002, no steps were taken by the appellants and therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed in default. The reason mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay of 857 days in filing the restoration application cannot be said to be a sufficient reason, which prevented the appellants to file the application within the period of limitation. However, we have heard learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the appellants on merit of the case as also perused the order of learned Single Judge under challenged in appeal, dated 12th February, 1998.
The respondent-workman was engaged with the appellants department on 1st July, 1986 and he has been working continuously. His initial engagement was made under the provisions of the Rajasthan PWD (B&R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work- charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules of 1964" hereinafter). He was granted status of semi 3 permanent on completion of two years regular service and thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking status of permanent under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. During the continuity of the employment of the respondent- workman with the appellants, the appellants advertised the post of Store/Revenue Munshi, as the Chief Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Jodhpur, by his letter dated 20th July, 1987 sanctioned 32 posts of Store/Revenue Munishi for Barmer district. One Shri Rajendra Kumar Duggar, Executive Engineer, was authorized to conduct the exams and select the candidates, who appeared in the examination for the said posts and the respondent being eligible applied for the said post and upon being found eligible, he was subjected to written test and thereafter, typing test. Till the writ petition was filed, the result of the said examination was not declared by the appellants and therefore, the respondent-workman sought to declare his result and regularize his services. By order dated 12th February, 1998 while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents therein to declare the result as also to make the petitioner permanent on the post against which he is working, within the meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964 from the date of order of the writ petition and if those posts are 4 abolished, his appointment be considered on an equivalent post of Store/Revenue Munshi and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been working with the appellants for almost 22 years. Therefore, in our view, even on merit, the appeal is devoid of merit and position of the respondent-workman which has now been settled over a period of 22 years, cannot be changed.
In this view of the matter, even if the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned and appeal is restored, the result of the appeal would be same to which we have arrived at and therefore, we do not find any good ground to condone the delay and restore the appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as restoration application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI), J. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK