Partly allowed

Sudhir Kumar v. Birla Education Trust and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2024CW/7913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the quashing of his termination appeal by the Tribunal on limitation grounds. This court found the delay not excessive and reasoned offered satisfactory thus the impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to Tribune for a decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.06.2014 quashed and set aside. Appeal remanded to Tribunal for decision on merits.

Sudhir Kumar Vs Birla Education Trust and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7913/2014

¶3

Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Rai Saini, aged about 54 years R/o Eye Hospital Ke Picche, Ward No. 17, Pilani, Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Birla Education Trust through its Secretary, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu.

¶7

Managing Committee, Birla Senior Secondary School through its Secretary, Pilani, Jhunjhunu.

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.). ----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Pujari Ms. Namita Parihar-Dy.GC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

08/08/2024

¶13

The services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide order dated 02.06.2009 and aggrieved by the aforesaid termination order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, “the Tribunal”), under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short, “the act of 1989”) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

Treating that appeal as barred by limitation, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 18.06.2014 rejected the same and

¶15

[CW-7913/2014]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the impugned order dated 02.06.2009, the respondents have not made compliance of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and no approval of the Director was taken prior to passing of the impugned order. Counsel submits that the petitioner was under impression that he was continuing in service until such direction given by the Director, Secondary Education. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not only committed an error in deciding the appeal, filed by the petitioner without taking into account its merits, but also on the count of delay, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no such ground was taken by the petitioner at the time of filing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Counsel submits that a ground was taken by the petitioner in the said application that he was given assurance by the Principal of the school that he would be kept in service and that is why, he could not approach the Tribunal within the time frame. Counsel submits that even in the said application, the name of the Principal was not mentioned. Counsel submits that considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was of the view that no justified reason was explained by the petitioner while seeking condonation of delay and accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly

¶20

[CW-7913/2014]

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶24

Perusal of the record indicates that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide impugned order dated 02.06.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 on 19.04.2010, i.e., after some delay along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, giving explanation of delay in approaching the Tribunal. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.06.2014 by recording a fact that reasons offered by the petitioner were not found to be satisfactory.

¶25

Since the order of termination of the petitioner is under challenge, on various counts by the petitioner, hence, the Tribunal could have decided the appeal submitted by the petitioner on merits and demerits instead of rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. Even, otherwise also, the delay was not much higher and the reasons were duly explained by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal on its merits.

¶26

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 stands quashed and set aside.

¶27

[CW-7913/2014]

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

The appeal filed by the petitioner, is ordered to be restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 09.09.2024. It is expected from the Tribunal to decide the appeal, on its merits expeditiously as early as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

It is made clear that this Court is not issuing any direction to the respondents to take a decision in a particular manner, however, they are expected to take a decision after due application of mind, and after providing fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Aayush Sharma/104

Sudhir Kumar v. Birla Education Trust and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar v. Birla Education Trust and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Meena S/O Shri Hari Singh Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Usha Jain D/O Shri Madanlal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Norat Mal Khatik, S/O Late Maduram Vs the Union of India

Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sunita Sharma Vs State Education Departmentors

Rameshwar Dayal Son of Shri Babu Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation