Dismissed

The State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Kumar

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024SAW/699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench dismissed Special Appeal filed by Rajasthan State against lower court order confirming probationary employee, holding no difference for State instrumentality and noting lack of merit on prima facie grounds after rejecting delay condonation application.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1/2024 dismissed; Special Appeal No. 679/2024 dismissed on dismissal of limitation application.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Santosh Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28987-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 699/2024

¶4

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶5

Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 4. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Churu.

¶7

The Block Develompent Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶8

Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mehari, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Santosh Kumar S/o Harphool Singh, 54, Van Vihar Colony, Churu And Presently Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Mehari, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu.

¶12

	----Respondent
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG Mr. Deepak Suthar,AGC
For Respondent(s)	:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

16/07/2024

I.A. No.1/2024:-

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condoning the delay of 724 days in preferring the present special appeal.

¶18

[2024:RJ-JD:28987-DB]

¶19

[SAW-699/2024]

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

In the limitation application, the appellant-State of Rajasthan has pleaded that it took some time in movement of the files and seeking necessary permissions.

¶22

However, having regard to the judgment in Postmaster General Vs. Living Media India Lmt. (2012) 3 SCC 563, no distinction can be drawn between a private individual and the State instrumentality. Just to indicate, the writ court based its order following the judgment in “State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kanta Sharan” in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1866/2018. This is well accepted in service jurisprudence that once a probationery is confirmed in service, the date of his confirmation shall relate back to the date of his initial appointment and while so, prima facie, we do not find even any merit in this Special Appeal.

¶23

While so, I.A. No.1/2024 is hereby dismissed.

¶24

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.679/2024:-

¶25

On dismissal of limitation application, this Special Appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶27

(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶28

51-arjun/-

The State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Kumar

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Reena Tabiyar

Mahaveer Bishnoi Vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Soni

Giriraj Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagveer Singh Vs Labour Court

M/S Hukma Ram Dudi Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Gulab Chand Meghwal