Dismissed

N. D. Bhootara v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2021WRW/204/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a review petition filed by petitioners regarding pay scale entitlements. The court held that the petition was barred by limitation and noted that subsequent events granting different benefits did not justify reopening concluded proceedings or condoning delay. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as barred by limitation; no order as to costs.

N. D. Bhootara Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 204/2017

¶3

¶4

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10493/2011

¶5

N.D.Bhootara s/o late Shri Shrikishan Bhootara, aged about 59 years, r/o Defence Colony, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶6

Devendra Soni s/o Shri Tulsi Ram Soni, aged about 59 years, r/o near Maheshwari Marble, Pal Balaji Mandir Road, Jodhpur.

¶7

Veer Singh S/o Shri Budh Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o CF- 23, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

¶8

Maqsood Siddique S/o Shri Abdul Wazid, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Behind Stadium Cinema, Jodhpur.

¶9

Amar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Defence Colony, Near First Pulia, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶10

R.K. Purohit S/o Dr. P.M. Purohit, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Bal Kishan Building, Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur.

¶11

Subhash Bhati S/o Shri Jagdish Bhati, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 3, Parwati Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur.

¶12

Mahendra Patwa S/o Late Shri S.M. Patwa, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 42, Imaratiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

¶13

Gopal Bhandari S/o Shri Vijay Raj Bhandari, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Opposite Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶14

Dinesh Kumar Gandhi s/o Shri Padam Chand Gandhi, aged about 63 years, r/o Near Narsingh Dhara, inside Jalori Gate, Jodhpur.

¶15

Narsingh Chand Khinvsara s/o Shri Kapoor Chand Khinvsara, aged about 65 years, r/o Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶16

Rameshwar Chhangani S/o Shri Jai Kishan Chhangani, Aged About 56 Years, R/o CF-6, High Court Colony, Jodhpur.

¶17

Arun Kumar Bohra S/o Shri Satyanarayan Bohra, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Piplia Ka Chowk, Jodhpur.

¶18

Ashok Purohit s/o Shri Govind Ram Purohit, aged about

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[WRW-204/2017]

¶21

57 years, r/o 25-F-28, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶22

Smt. Suraj Somani W/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 57 Years, Resident of Behind Kabra School, Paota, Jodhpur.

¶23

Pushpa Hans W/o Shri Jagdish Hans, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Sri Ram Nagar, Near Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.

¶24

---Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶27

The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through the Registrar General.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional Advocate General Mr. G.R.Punia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Punia

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶31

Order

¶32

11/01/2021

¶33

This review petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of order dated 17.9.13 passed by a Bench of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners claiming third selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 was partly allowed in the following terms:

¶34

(3 of 5)

¶35

[WRW-204/2017]

¶36

“29. In this conspectus of facts, in terms of the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998, as the case may be, the Court masters, in terms of paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5, the serving Court masters with pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 would be entitled to the third selection grade of Rs.6500-10500.

¶37

In view of the interpretation of paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5, we are unable to extend our concurrence to the claim of the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 made by the petitioners or that of Rs.10,000-15200 of the Assistant Registrar before the pay revision. The relevant notification(s) having limited the third selection grade in conformity with the stipulations embodied therein, any claim based thereon has to abide by the same.

¶38

The upshot of the above determination is thus that the appointment of a Stamp Reporter to the post of Court Master is not a promotion under the relevant Service Rules and the petitioners would be entitled to the selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500 as stipulated by the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998 on completion of 27 years of service. However, in computing and releasing the actual financial benefits, the date of conferment of gazetted status to the post of Court Master would be the cut off date therefor, having regard to the ambit of applicability of the notification dated 25.1.1992/17.2.1998, as the case may be. The actual relief of third selection grade would, thus, stand limited upto 2.3.2009. The challenge to paragraphs 2(iii), 4(iii) & 5 is negated.

¶39

The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.”

¶40

Being aggrieved by the judgment restricting the grant of third selection grade in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 instead of Rs.8000-13500, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLP (Civil) No.5932/2014 “Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.”. The State also preferred SLPs against the said judgment. While, the notices were issued in the SLP filed by the petitioners, the SLPs preferred by the State were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.3.2014, observing that since all the issues will be examined in the SLP filed by the petitioners, there is no necessity to examine the issue in the SLP filed on behalf of the

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[WRW-204/2017]

¶43

State Government. The SLP preferred by the petitioners and other SLPs preferred by the State of Rajasthan arising out of the order passed in other writ petitions by this Court, were dismissed by the Supreme Court by a common order dated 22.01.2015. The review petition filed by the State seeking review of order dated 22.01.2015 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.07.2016. It is stated that the review petition filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking review of order dated 22.01.2015 was dismissed for non prosecution/non removal of the defects. Suffice it to say that the order under review dated 17.9.2013 has attained finality.

¶44

The present review petition was filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 17.9.2013 before this Court on 12.9.2017, which is reported to be barred by limitation for 1452 days. It is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. 4. It is averred that subsequent to the decision of this Court dated 17.9.2013, two notifications dated 30.8.2016 and 18.10.2016 have been issued by the Rajasthan High Court, whereby the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner has been made Gazetted and Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner and Court Masters have been put in the same pay scale and the grade pay. That apart, by subsequent orders dated 18.7.2017 and 26.8.2017 issued by the Registrar (Administration), the petitioners pay were re-fixed by withdrawing the benefit of Rule 26A of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. According to the petitioners, since the review petition has been filed keeping in view the subsequent events, the delay in filing the review petition deserves to be condoned.

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

[WRW-204/2017]

¶47

Obviously, if on account of the subsequent events, the petitioners have become entitled for any relief, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action and it is always open for the petitioners to agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum and avail the remedy available under the law. But on account of the subsequent events referred supra, the concluded proceedings in the writ petition cannot be re-opened. As a matter of fact, by way of review petition, the petitioners want this Court to re-hear the entire matter, which cannot be permitted.

¶48

In this view of the matter, no case for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the review petition is made out and therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and consequently, the review petition deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Moreover, by way of review petition, the attempt of the petitioners in claiming re-hearing of the matter cannot be countenanced by this Court.

¶49

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶50

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶51

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶52

16-Aditya/-

N. D. Bhootara v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. D. Bhootara v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Nathuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwar Lal Sen Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manohar Singh Keshawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Gagrol Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Manohar Lal Pareek

The Coordinator Vs Purva Rajpurohit

Jabbar Singh Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan