Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SURJI DEVI on 7 October 2021
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
SURJI DEVI
(Civil Appeal No.6205 of 2021)
OCTOBER 07, 2021
[M.R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Writ petition – Delay and laches –Respondent’s husband terminated from service in 1996 – Appealfiled by him, however, during the pendency of the said appeal hepassed away in 2009 – Appeal not pursued by respondent – Writpetition filed by her in 2012 challenging the 1996 termination order– Allowed – Held: Writ petition was barred by delay and laches –Single Judge erred in entertaining the same – Further, despite thepending appeal and the respondent’s specific prayer in writ petitionto direct the authority to decide the same, the Single Judge enteredinto the merits of the case and quashed the order of termination –Impugned judgments passed by the Division Bench as well as theSingle Judge, set aside – Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 –ss.91(3), (4) – Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 – r.86.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6205 of2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appeal WritNo.1045 of 2018.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Advs. for theAppellants.
Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Advs.for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
641
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ARajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1045 of 2018, bywhich the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appealand has confirmed the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learnedSingle Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed and set asidethe order of termination dated 16.12.1996 dismissing the late husband ofthe respondent from service, the State of Rajasthan and others haveBpreferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That the late husband of the respondent herein late ShriRameshwar Lal was serving as Gram Sevak. He was suspended fromCservice vide order dated 08.01.1996 on the ground of willful absencefrom duty and not completing the audit. The administrative committee ofPanchayat Samiti Nokha in its meting dated 26.02.1996 took a decisionto remove him from service. That thereafter a public notice was publishedin the daily news paper on 14.03.1996, whereby Rameshwar Lal wasDdirected to join his duties within a period of 15 days with explanation.Even after completion of 15 days the said Rameshwar Lal did not joinhis duties. Thereafter the services of the said Rameshwar Lal – latehusband of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 16.12.1996invoking the provisions of Section 91 (3) of the Rajasthan PanchayatiRaj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1994) and Rule 86 ofERajasthan Services Rules, 1951. It appears that the late husband of therespondent preferred an appeal against the order of termination issuedunder Section 91 (4) of the Act 1994 before the District EstablishmentCommittee, Zila Parishad, Bikaner. During the pendency of the saidappeal the employee – Rameshwar Lal passed away on 18.09.2009.FThat thereafter the respondent herein preferred a writ petition beforethe High Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11405 of 2011 challengingthe dismissal/termination order dated 16.12.1996. By judgment and orderdated 17.01.2017, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitionand quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 16.12.1996and directed the appellants to give all consequential benefits to theGrespondent treating her husband to be superannuated on 16.12.1996.The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has beenconfirmed by the Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order.Hence the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theHrespective parties at length.
4. The facts which emerged are that the late husband of therespondent was removed/dismissed from service by order dated16.12.1996. He preferred an appeal which was pending before theappellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the late husbandof the respondent – employee died/passed away in the year 2009. If thelate husband of the respondent would not have been terminated/dismissedhe would have attained the age of superannuation in the year 1999.After the death of the employee – late husband of the respondent shedid not pursue the appeal, maybe she might not be aware of filing/pendency of the appeal. That thereafter the respondent – widow of theemployee filed a writ petition before the High Court in the year 2012.Thus, by the time the respondent preferred a writ petition before theHigh Court, 15 years had passed from the date of termination and evenapproximately 13 years from the date on which the employee wouldhave attained the age of superannuation i.e. from the year 1999.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as such, the learnedSingle Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in the year2012, challenging the order of termination passed on 16.12.1996, on theground of delay and laches alone. At this stage, it is required to be notedthat even despite the fact that it was specifically prayed by the respondentin writ petition before the learned Single Judge to direct the authority todecide the appeal preferred by her husband, the learned Single Judgedespite the above prayer and the pending appeal, entered into the meritsof the case and quashed and set aside the order of termination dated16.12.1996.
5. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that thetermination on 16.12.1996 was absolutely illegal and against the principlesof natural justice is concerned, once we hold that the writ petition wasbarred by delay and laches, thereafter the merits are not required to beconsidered. As observed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge erred inentertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order oftermination passed in the year 1996, on the ground of delay and lachesand more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order wouldnot have been passed the deceased employee would have retired onattaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.03.2019passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the judgment AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aand order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge are herebyquashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.
B
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H