The High Court discharged the second appeal, condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the question of law was identical to a matter already finally decided by this Court, and dismissed the appeal on merit accordingly.
The appeal is dismissed on merits and Section 5 of the Limitation Act application is condoned.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 111/2C)18
Versus c. .&* h % $?%I ..."%" -% &4 w gcy ?% Bhagwan Das S/o qt BOo.Ych-and, f pm- B/eS,i.ndfi~~$R.+o -I . Plot No. 2, Khvas Ji l<a Bag, ur$~ul;a, Jaipur And At preset$ 6hputer *x **9-+--%** Operator, Rajasthan St%&i;'oad %.& F Transport Corporation, ~~rs Ida-nt, iy Jaipur. 8," #,& ----,Respondent d &+P. .a &&&i. % fit we. -6 kT4 .. .
Foi- Appellant(s) : Mr~~l~ok&haturvedi
gpp
@w.<UiwBIu+ " 'J.@3& " ." % a???*% .a -I
12/07/2018
I. For the reaso e application under Section 5 of the Li filing the appeal is
condoned. The applic
g. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration against the defendants/appellants pleading therein tha't he was appointed on the post of Computer Operator
vide order dated 28.08.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1120-2050. The order dated 25.01.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan relating to grant of first, second and third selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service respectively was made applicable to its employees by the defendantCorporation to provide them the benefit of selection grade with effect from 25.01.1992.
J-3 'p.7 t--X3 4. It is the sa$%bthe\plalt~~/;[s@ondent that vide order $4 & ?% "2 &-dated 15.04.1@~~he was given first selectioh grade in the pay \V"'";, >" F 8. C%i w.e.f. 29.08.1998 and accord;rly~ his pay I' per plaintiff, he was given the pafscale of promotional post of As s and his salary was fixed at Rs.5000/-. Subseq vide order dated 13.09.2007 was gra de on completion of 18 years of service ; of Rs.5500-175-9000, consequent whereupon was made. As per the plaintiff/ respondent, on s of service the next promotional post wa nd for which the pay scale was Rs.6500-2 at despite repeated requests made, the a benefit and left with no
6. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.02.2012, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, against which an appeal came to be preferred by the defendants and the same has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment and decree dated Tf "7 " p e8g. gment of the frial Court. r: .c. -2 7. second appeal. @ 1. * $P considered the submissions hade by the %$J the appellants and after going thpdgh the impugned judgment it appears that t integra as similar een decided by this Court vide judgment elivered in S.B. civil question of law, much in this appeal. "1 s;. r pf-+$
"1 merit is liable to be dis~~~~~"""dt~~7 a 7 $4 LqLzk~%% is, hereby, dismissed.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filing the appeal is to be condoned. Whether the question of law is similar to one already decided by this Court.
Whether the appeal to which is merit is liable to be dismissed in terms of the law laid down in the earlier decided case.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur
Chief Manager, Tyre Plant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Bhagwan Das S/o [illegible]
PRAKASH GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
