TULSI DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who belongs to a scheduled caste of ''HARIJAN'' was working as Class IV servant as 'SAFAIWALA' with the Airforce, has challenged his impugned order of termination dated 13.10.87 passed by the Respondent No. 3, the AOC -IN -C, HQ. SWAC IAS, Jodhpur in this petition and prayed to quash the same and to reinstate him in service with back wages and to grant all consequential benefits of service.

(2.) INITIALLY , on 28.11.90 notice was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted. Inspite of service, none appeared for the other side. Therefore, on 26.8.91 this petition was admitted and again notice of admission was ordered to be issued to the other side. On 17.1.92 it was ordered to be put up for final hearing on 5th Feb. 92. But for some or the other reasons it could not be heard on that date. On 2.9.92 it was heard by Hon'ble R.S. Verma, J. (as he then was. At that time learned Counsel Sh. Nanda for the petitioner raised the contention that the order of discharge Annex. R -5 was bad as the: same was not implemented within 14 days as mentioned in the order itself. He wanted time to show the law on this point and the matter was treated as part heard and adjourned to 14.9.92. Then it was adjourned to 9.10.92 at the request of Sh. Nanda. On 24.2.93 it was adjourned at the request of Sh. Lal for Sh. Choudhary for the respondent. On 22.3.93 the matter was treated not as part -heard by Sh. R.S. Verma, J. Finally, this matter came to be heard fully for about two days by me and certain suggestions were made to both the parties by the court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties requested the Court to pass an appropriate order in the matter. Sh. Nanda for the petitioner made a statement on behalf of the petitioner that he does not want back wages and he is mainly concerned with the pensionary benefits, therefore, the impugned order be set aside so that the petitioner can get atleast pensionary benefits, as he had put on more than 16 years in service.

(3.) THIS case was put up at the top of the supplementary cause list. The healing of the case was supposed to be over within three months as desired and expected by the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench, but it could not be over under the aforesaid circumstances within three months, time. The learned Counsel Sh. Choudhary had initially prayed for time. I had granted time to Mr. Choudhary in his other matters but I had to refuse his request for any time in view of the order passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, Mr. Choudhary argued the matter. Learned Counsel Sh. Nanda firstly submitted that D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 387/96 filed by the Union of India against the order passed by this Court on 3.11.95 in this writ petition itself was not maintainable as the appeal was incompetent in as much as out of four respondents only one respondent i.e. Union of India filed an appeal and rest of the three respondents were neither appellants in the appeal nor they were joined as respondents. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench is noniest and the earlier order passed by this Court be restored. It is true that the appeal was filed by only one respondent out of four. It is also true that the matter was placed for regular admission though there was defect. Appeal as it is it was not maintainable. The original papers of D.B. Spl. Appeal were called for and going through the same I found that there was an endorsement made by the office that the defects arc removed. How? Nobody knows: whatever it may be. But I am of the opinion that once an order is passed by the Division Bench this Court cannot give any verdict about the correctness of the judgment. The petitioner should have either applied for review before the Division Bench or should have challenged it before the Supreme Court.