THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SURJI DEVI

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 07-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 641
641
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 – Appeal
filed by him, however, during the pendency of the said appeal he
passed away in 2009 – Appeal not pursued by respondent – Writ
petition 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 the
pending appeal and the respondent’s specific prayer in writ petition
to direct the authority to decide the same, the Single Judge entered
into the merits of the case and quashed the order of termination –
Impugned judgments passed by the Division Bench as well as the
Single 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 of
2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ
No.1045 of 2018.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1045 of 2018, by
which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal
and has confirmed the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside
the order of termination dated 16.12.1996 dismissing the late husband of
the respondent from service, the State of Rajasthan and others have
preferred 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 Shri
Rameshwar Lal was serving as Gram Sevak. He was suspended from
service vide order dated 08.01.1996 on the ground of willful absence
from duty and not completing the audit. The administrative committee of
Panchayat Samiti Nokha in its meting dated 26.02.1996 took a decision
to remove him from service. That thereafter a public notice was published
in the daily news paper on 14.03.1996, whereby Rameshwar Lal was
directed to join his duties within a period of 15 days with explanation.
Even after completion of 15 days the said Rameshwar Lal did not join
his duties. Thereafter the services of the said Rameshwar Lal – late
husband of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 16.12.1996
invoking the provisions of Section 91 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1994) and Rule 86 of
Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. It appears that the late husband of the
respondent preferred an appeal against the order of termination issued
under Section 91 (4) of the Act 1994 before the District Establishment
Committee, Zila Parishad, Bikaner. During the pendency of the said
appeal the employee – Rameshwar Lal passed away on 18.09.2009.
That thereafter the respondent herein preferred a writ petition before
the High Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11405 of 2011 challenging
the dismissal/termination order dated 16.12.1996. By judgment and order
dated 17.01.2017, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition
and quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 16.12.1996
and directed the appellants to give all consequential benefits to the
respondent treating her husband to be superannuated on 16.12.1996.
The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been
confirmed 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 the
respective parties at length.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
4. The facts which emerged are that the late husband of the
respondent was removed/dismissed from service by order dated
16.12.1996. He preferred an appeal which was pending before the
appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the late husband
of the respondent – employee died/passed away in the year 2009. If the
late husband of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.