Disposed

Ramkaran Sharma Son of Shri Bajranglal Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2025CW/20646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Engineer's departmental appeal was dismissed in default and his restoration application was rejected without fresh notice to him. The High Court held he remained unheard, quashed both orders, remitted the appeal to the appellate authority for decision on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 quashed; appeal remitted to appellate authority to decide on merits after hearing; petitioner to appear on 17.02.2025.

Ramkaran Sharma Son of Shri Bajranglal Sharma, Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20646/2019

¶3

Ramkaran Sharma Son of Shri Bajranglal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Junior Engineer (J.En.), Municipal BoardBijaynagar, District Ajmer And Resident Of Village Jeepiya Via Masuda, Tehsil Bhinai, District Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Department Of Local Self Government (Local Bodies), G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, C- Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶8

The Deputy Director (Regional), Department Of Local Self Government, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal for Mr. Ashish Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

07/02/2025

¶14

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned orders dated 10.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 this petition has been filed.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was pending before the appellate authority wherein a notice was issued to the petitioner for putting appearance on 21.12.2017. Counsel submits that the aforesaid notice was service upon the petitioner on 22.12.2017 at 12.30 pm,

¶16

[CW-20646/2019]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

hence he could not appear before the appellate authority. Counsel submits that on the same day the petitioner requested the appellate authority for posting the matter for some other day after providing him an opportunity of hearing. Counsel submits that no further notice was issued to the petitioner and his appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 10.01.2018. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware about the next date of hearing, hence he could not appear before the appellate authority on 10.01.2018. Counsel submits that subsequently a restoration application was submitted on 12.02.2018, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2018 and the petition was not restored to its original number. Counsel submits that the petitioner could not get opportunity to argue his matter on merits and his appeal has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution. Counsel submits that the principle of natural justice has been violated, so in the interest of justice the impugned orders dated 10.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶19

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that inspite of granting sufficient time to the petitioner, he failed to appear before the appellate authority, hence his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Counsel submits that appellate authority has not committed

¶20

[CW-20646/2019]

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

any error in passing the order impugned, hence under these circumstances interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that on 13.12.2017 a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on 21.12.2017, however the said notice was served upon the petitioner on the next date i.e. on 22.12.2017 at 12.30 pm and on the same day the petitioner sent a letter to the Director, Local Bodies to post the matter for some other day but subsequently no further notice was issued to the petitioner and finally the petition was dismissed in default on 10.01.2018 for want of prosecution. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner approached the appellate authority on 12.02.2018 by way of filing restoration application, however the same was also dismissed by the authority on 20.03.2018. Contents of the record indicates that the petitioner was not aware about the next date and no further notice was issued and served upon the petitioner, hence the petitioner could not appear before the appellate authority and he remained unheard and the matter has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶24

It is well settled principle of law that adequate opportunity of hearing should be provided to the person aggrieved before passing any adverse order. In the instant case principles of natural justice have been violated, hence impugned order dated 10.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 stands

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CW-20646/2019]

¶27

quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority i.e. Director Local Bodies to hear and decide the appeal on its merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on 17.02.2025.

¶29

It is expected from the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits within a period of three months from the date of appearance before the appellate authority.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

KuD/92

Ramkaran Sharma Son of Shri Bajranglal Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkaran Sharma Son of Shri Bajranglal Sharma, v. 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

Harlal Singh Vs State of Rajasthanandors

Prahlad Singh Tanwar (Senior Citizen) S/O Shri Satidan Singh Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Mahendra Lal Saini S/O Surajmal @ Surajbhan Saini Vs Rajrishi College

The State of Rajasthan Vs Heera Lal Mahawar S/O Shri Ram Prasad Mahawar

Sanjay Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Goverdhand Lal Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Cortporation

Hoti Lal Meena Son of Shri Ram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan