Dismissed

State Opf Raj. v. Surendra Kumar Chawla and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2017WRW/130/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the State's plea to recall an order declaring a writ petition infructuous. The court held that since the employee was reinstated by the Tribunal and subsequently superannuated, the petition could not be effectively revived despite the initial order setting aside the retirement.

What did the court decide?

The review application filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

State Opf Raj. Vs Surendra Kumar Chawla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Review No. 130 / 2016

¶3

The State of Rajasthan through

¶4

The Colonisation Commissioner

Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Petitioner

Versus

Surendra Kumar Chawla S/o Shri Babu Ram Chawla, resident of 5-E-274, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

¶9

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.AR Godara.

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Himmat Jagga.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

05/07/2017

¶16

The State of Rajasthan has preferred this review application seeking recalling/review of the judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5119/2004 (State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Kumar Chawla & Ors.) whereby, the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed treating the same to be infructuous.

¶17

Learned AGC Shri Godara vehemently urges that the writ petition had been preferred for challenging the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.420/2001 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent employee against the adverse entries made in his service record was accepted and the order of compulsory

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[WRW-130/2016]

¶20

retirement passed against the respondent employee on the basis of the adverse entries made in his record was set aside. He urges that the adverse entries made in the record of the employee were never set aside and thus, merely because of the fact that the employee superannuated, the writ petition could not have been disposed of as having become infructuous. He contends that this Court was required to examine the merits of the case & legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal rather than disposing of the writ petition as infructuous. He thus prays that the review application deserves to be accepted.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent employee pointed out that the Tribunal allowed the employee’s appeal and set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the employee way back on 9.8.2004. The writ petition was accompanied by a stay application which was rejected by this Court by order dated 12.12.2006. Thereafter, the respondent was reinstated and superannuated on 28.2.2013 after serving out his tenure. He urges that in this background and subsequent development, this Court rightly rejected the writ petition as having become infructuous. He urges that for the sake of arguments, even if the writ petition had been allowed and the order of Tribunal had been set aside, the consequences of the petitioner having served the State of Rajasthan and having superannuated could not be washed off. He thus craves rejection of the review application.

¶22

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶23

Indisputably, the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[WRW-130/2016]

¶26

the employee was not stayed by this Court and rather, the stay application was affirmatively rejected by order dated 12.12.2006. The order of the Tribunal was complied with and the respondent employee was reinstated in service and served the State for remainder of his tenure. He superannuated on 28.2.2013. In this background, even if for argument’s sake, it is assumed that the writ petition was heard and allowed on merits and the order of compulsory retirement was restored, then too, the benefits which the employee gained after having served the State of Rajasthan for a period of about 9 years could not have been withdrawn. Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan was rightly rejected as having rendered infructuous. There is no reason or justification to recall the order dated 16.12.2014 which does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record.

¶27

As a consequence of the above discussion, the instant review application is hereby dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

¶28

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶29

S.Phophaliya/-

State Opf Raj. v. Surendra Kumar Chawla and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Opf Raj. v. Surendra Kumar Chawla and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rajiya Vs State

Shivdarshan Vs State

Shivdarshan Vs State and Anr.

Vishnu Dutt Vs Praveen Gupta and Ors.

Shiv Singh Vs State and Ors.

Brij Mohan Vs Virendra Bhandari