KAMALA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to direct the respondents to make full compliance of the order of Hon'ble court dated 1/5/1992 by which his earlier writ petition No. 1219/83 was allowed and the order of his dismissal was quashed and the respondents were directed to reinstate him in service and grant him all other consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have so far not fully complied with the aforesaid order inasmuch as, petitioner made number of representations and finally vide order dated 25/10/1994, petitioner much after his reinstatement granted promotion on the post of Inspector (Executive) because many of his juniors were promoted when he was out of service, such promotion. Although promotion was made effective from 31/10/1981, date on which such juniors were promoted but Registrar Cooperative societies in his aforesaid order dated 25/10/1994 stated that petitioner shall only be entitled for notional benefit for the intervening period and he actually been entitled from the date he has been reinstated in service. Learned counsel submitted that such order was wholly and contrary to the judgment of this court. When petitioner was making representation in the meantime, limitation for filing contempt petition was gone and therefore he was advised to file writ petition. In the writ petition, prayer that has been made is that respondents have not granted the benefits of selection scales to the petitioner on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in terms of the government circular dated 25/1/1992. Petitioner during the entire service career, was granted only one promotion and that too on notional basis on 25/10/1994.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has since retired on attaining age of superannuation, but so far he has not been granted said benefits.

(3.) THIS writ petition was filed in the year 1995. Matter was last listed on 23/7/2009 giving last opportunity to the learned Additional government Counsel to seek instructions. Even now, learned counsel appearing for the State makes a prayer for adjournment. So far, no reply has been filed and the affidavit filed by the petitioner, has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents that so far, respondents have not granted benefits to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that judgment passed by this court on 1/5/1992 has attained finality as respondents have not filed any appeal against the said order. Order dated 25/10/1994 does not also specify that such compliance was made subject to outcome of any appeal and obviously it appears that no such appeal was filed. Respondents were having no option but to comply with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment.