caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Rajasthan vs Surji Devi on 7 October, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6205 OF 2021
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURJI DEVI ..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.10.07
16:34:46 IST
Reason:
Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed and
1
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
2
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.
3
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
the respondent would not have been terminated/dismissed
he would have attained the age of superannuation in the year
1999. After the death of the employee – late husband of the
respondent she did not pursue the appeal, maybe she might
not be aware of filing/pendency of the appeal. That thereafter
the respondent – widow of the employee filed a writ petition
before the High Court in the year 2012. Thus, by the time the
respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court,
15 years had passed from the date of termination and even
approximately 13 years from the date on which the employee
would have attained the age of superannuation i.e. from the
year 1999. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as such, the learned Single Judge ought not
to have entertained the writ petition in the year 2012,
challenging the order of termination passed on 16.12.1996,
4
on the ground of delay and laches alone. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that even despite the fact that it was
specifically prayed by the respondent in writ petition before
the learned Single Judge to direct the authority to decide the
appeal preferred by her husband, the learned Single Judge
despite the above prayer and the pending appeal, entered
into the merits of the case and quashed and set aside the
order of termination dated 16.12.1996.
5. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the
termination on 16.12.1996 was absolutely illegal and against
the principles of natural justice is concerned, once we hold
that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches,
thereafter the merits are not required to be considered. As
observed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge erred in
entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the
order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground
of delay and laches and more particularly when even
otherwise if the termination order would not have been
passed the deceased employee would have retired on
attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999.
5
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order
dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court as well as the judgment and order dated 17.01.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and
set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
October 07, 2021.
6
Comments