Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Gautam v. State

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2021CW/2339/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The HC dismissed the petition challenging a Tribunal order on seniority which the Court found had already been implemented. It noted the delay and reliance on the B.S. Bajwa precedent prohibiting reopening seniority after a long period.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application dismissed. All pending applications disposed of.

Ramesh Chand Gautam Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2339/1999

¶4

Ramesh Chand Gautam S/o Shri Ram Gopal Gautam, 386, Keshav Pura Sector Vi, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Govt. Revenue Department Group I, Jaipur.

¶8

The Collector Kota, Kota.

¶9

Rakesh Mohan Sexena Udc Judicial Section, Through The

¶10

Collector Kota.

¶11

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

16/03/2021

¶17

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶18

Although, in the court, the Reader was informed that the

¶19

counsel shall appear through video conferencing. Several attempts were made to contact lawyer who has not responded.

¶20

Learned counsel appears for the respondent no.3.

¶21

No one appears for the State. Although Government counsels are present in the court, however, the system adopted

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CW-2339/1999]

¶24

by the State Government is akin to panel lawyers and therefore, the lawyers inspite of being Government counsels present in the court do not appear in the old matters with the spacious plea that they do not have any instructions in the particular case which relates to a particular Department.

¶25

In the absence of counsels, however, old matters cannot be left undecided. This matter is pending since 1999, therefore, the court heard the counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has pointed out that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 5.3.1999 has already been implemented in favour of respondent no.3 as there is no interim order passed so far as staying the operation of the Tribunal’s order. This court would not like to interfere with an order which has already been complied with by the State Government. Even otherwise, this court notices that the order passed by the Tribunal is based on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of “B.S. Bajwa & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab” reported in 1998 (2) SCC 523 wherein it was held that a question of seniority cannot be reopened after a period of 9 years. Admittedly, the respondent no.3 had been placed over and above the petitioner since 1985 as per the seniority list dated 11.3.1985 and the same has been sought to be changed by issuing another list on 24.12.1993 i.e. after a period of 8 years.

¶27

In view thereof, the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stand dismissed.

(3 of 3)

[CW-2339/1999]

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶33

Anu /

Ramesh Chand Gautam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Gautam v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Devi Meena D/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Meena Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Girraj Prasad Prajapat S/O Shri Madanlal Prajapat Vs the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Ramprasad Meena S/O Jainarayan Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramji Lal Goswami Son of Shri Narayan Puri Goswami Vs State of Rajasthan

Veer Singh Vs State and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs State and Ors.