Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj.& Ors vs Bhagwan Lal Choudhary & Anr on 5 March, 2013
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 767/2000
State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Anr.
Date of Order : March 5th, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. Vimal Mathur, Addl.Govt. Counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Rameshwar Hadeau, for the respondent No. 1.
******
By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 06.8.1999 (Exhibit/3) passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circle Bench, Jodhpur.
The learned Tribunal while adjudicating the lis involved in the matter has granted selection grades to the respondent on completion of 9 and 18 years of services by reckoning the services with effect from 1.2.1970. The learned Tribunal has granted reliefs to the respondent employee in adherence of the notification dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State Government.
Learned counsel for the parties have brought to my notice that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent employee has expired and his LRs were brought on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. On examining the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, I am fully convinced that the learned Tribunal did not committed error much less and error apparent on the face of the record, while adjudicating the lis involved in the matter. The learned Tribunal has discussed the rigor of the notification issued by the State Govt. on 25.1.1992 and analyzing the purport of the said notification vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal has fully concurred with the afflictions of the respondent employee.
That being the situation, neither it is a case of any error apparent on the face of the record nor it is a case of jurisdictional error being committed by the learned Tribunal. The legal position is no more res integra that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly with care and circumspection. The concern of this Court is to see that the lower court or the Tribunal has acted well within its papameters and has not overlooked the prescribed procedure. In my considered opinion there is no infirmity which call for interference in the order impugned. One more mitigating circumstance is that duirng the pendency of this writ petition, incumbent employee has expired and presently the writ petition is being pursued by the petitioner against his LRS, therefore, no interference in the impugned order is called for.
Resultantly, no interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA), J.
ns.