STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHARTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Members of the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal dated 29.4.85 which has been filed on 23.8.86 i.e. after the expiry of about one year and four months. Mr. Kumbhat has raised a preliminary objection and has submitted that the writ petition is highly belated. There are two Govt. circulars, first bearing No. F.17(6)DOP/A -H/85 dated 3.1.87 of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms where in it has been ordered that instructions have been issued from time to time to the effect that the decision of the Tribunal should be implemented or a writ petition filed against such judgment within a period of three months. Mr. Kumbhat has also drawn our attention to another circular of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms bearing No. F.17(6) DOP/A -II/85 dated 4th Nov., 1985 where in Para 3 of the instructions it has been observed that three months period is considered to be reasonable time for implementing the judgment of the Tribunal or for taking a decision to file a writ petition against such judgment before the Rajasthan High Court. It has been claimed by Mr. S. Kumbhat that this writ petition has been filed after sixteen months instead of three months and, therefore, this writ petition should not be enternained on the ground of delay. In this respect, he drew our attention to a decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra 1986 W.L.N. (U.C.) 9 where in it has been observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court that explanation offered by the petitioner for inordinate delay of three years is not satisfactory and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Our attention has also been drawn to a S.B. decision of this Court rendered in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Shivlal and Anr. 1986 W.L.N. (U.C.) 534. In this case, the writ petition was filed against the order of Labour Court after one and half year and delay was not satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the writ petition was not entertained. Our attention has' also been drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pt. Girdharan Prasad Missir and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. 1979 U.J. (S.C.) 721 where in their Lordships have observed that unexplained delay is a good ground for dismissing a writ petition. In that case, the award was given on July 24, 1962 and the writ petition was filed on March 12, 1964 and, therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and that judgment has been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Our attention has also been drawn to a S.B. decision of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Prescribed Authority, Kiccha (Rudrapur) Nainital and Ors. in : AIR1982All151 where in the writ petition was dismissed after it was admitted. The same is the case in this writ petition. The learned Judge observed that by mere admission of a writ petition the right of the opposite party to raise the question of limitation and laches is not taken away. The contesting opposite party can press its objection regarding the laches and limitation and that question can be examined and determined at the stage of final hearing of the writ petition. There is no doubt that according to the Govt. circulars, the authorities concerned were obliged to take decision within a period of three months as to whether writ petition should be filed against the order of Tribunal. In this case, the writ petition is definitely belated because it has been filed after 16 months. More over, in this case persons similarly situated have already been granted relief and their pay has been protected vide an order of the Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur bearing No. 3/9 Police/Finance/Fix/83/9992 dated 18.8.86 where in it has been held that if a person has been temporarily promoted and sent on deputation to R.A.C. (I.R.) and later on he has been selected by the department that his pay has been protected and no further re -fixation was required. Under these circumstances when this is the procedure which has been adopted by the department in pursuance of the similarly situated persons no different scales can be applied in case of similarly situated persons.

(2.) KEEPING in view these facts and circumstances of the case, we are firmly of the view that the judgment of the learned Tribunal deserves to be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed. However, the pay of the petitioner shall stand protected on reversion in the department. If any recovery has been made, then that be paid back to him within a period of six months from today to the respondents.