The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a Naka-guard seeking promotion as Sub-Nakedar, citing inordinate delay of seven years and the barring of lis pendens regarding his previous reversion.
The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to raise objections in the pending writ petition concerning the previous reversion order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP 778/2K
//1//
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
**
Civil Writ Petition No.778/2000 Ramrakshpal Versus State of Raj. & Ors ..
Date of Order ::: 10/04/08
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Srijna Shresht for Mr. CL Saini, for petitioner Mr. Omvir Singh Saini for Mr. Ganesh Meena, for the respondent Mr. Subhash Jain for respondent.
Instant writ petition has been filed
with the grievance that he is entitled for
promotion to the post of Sub-Nakedar w.e.f.
the date his junior-respondent No.5 was
promoted, with consequential benefits.
Respondent no. 5 (Arjun Lal Saini)
was promoted as Sub-Nakedar under R.27 of
Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Ministerial
Service Rules, 1963 (“Rules, 1963”) vide order
30/04/1993 (Ann.2) which has been assailed by
petitioner after almost seven years through
instant petition in the year 2000.
Respondents in their reply have
averred that so far as instant petitioner is
concerned, he was reverted from the post of
Sub-Nakedar vide order dated 20/03/1991, which
has been challenged by him in CWP- 6923/1991,
pending before this Court.
Petitioner is presently working as
CWP 778/2K
//2//
Naka-guard after passing of order dated
20/03/91, and order of reversion being already
under challenge before this Court in CWP
(supra), all consequential benefits can be
considered in pending writ petition but no
cause of action has accrued for filing instant
petition. So far as the order of promotion of
respondent no.5 is concerned, there is delay
of almost seven years - no reason thereof has
been furnished, certainly by passage of time,
right has been conferred in favour of
respondent No.5, who got his appointment as
Sub-Nakedar under Rules, 1963 vide order dt.
30/04/93 which cannot be interfered after such
inordinate delay.
Consequently, writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
However, petitioner will be at liberty to
raise all objections available in accordance
with law in pending writ petition, (supra).
( Ajay Rastogi), J.
Bharti/p.2/778CW2K-1004.doc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion with consequential benefits when there is a delay of seven years in filing the writ petition.
Ramrakshpal
State of Rajasthan
Arjun Lal Saini
Ajay Rastogi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court