High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
MUNICIPAL BOARD,PIPAR CITY v ANIL KUMAR VYAS & ARS - SAW Case No. 1310 of 1997  RD-RJ 5645 (29 November 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
(1) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1310 of 1997
ANIL KUMAT & ANR.
(2) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 361 of 1997
BARKAT ALI & ORS.
Mr. ANIL BHANDARI, for the appellant / petitioner
Mr. M.MRIDUL, for the respondent.
Date of Order : 29.11.2007
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.
These two appeals involve the common questions inasmuch as, the learned Single Bench decided the writ petition No. 2938 being subject matter of Special Appeal
No. 1310/1997 on the basis of the judgement rendered in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2722/1990, which judgement is subject matter of challenge in special appeal No. 361/1997.
The controversy involved in the writ petition was that the employees challenged the termination order and writ petition No. 2722/1990 was decided vide order dated 09.01.1997 directing that, it would not be futile to decide the petition on merits and it may be equally unjust and inequitable to foist the services of the petitioner on the respondent merely because the petitioner continued in service due to the interim order and the petition remained pending for last so many years. It is also possible that the termination was justifiable and hence, legal and valid when ordered.
Considering these circumstance, on equitable consideration, the order was passed to the effect that the termination order is set aside and the respondent was left at liberty to re-examine in the light of the past record the case of the petitioner for his continuation and regularisation in accordance with law. The reasons for which the services was terminated by the impugned order, if exists, were also permitted to be considered. It appears that, this order was passed in view of the fact that, during the pendency of the writ petition, there was interim order from this Court, thus, employee continued in service.
The writ petition No. 2938 has also been decided in the same light and same terms, as the decision in case
No. 2722/1990 was.
Admittedly, there was no stay from this Court in appeal of the Municipal Board and it is now that pursuant to the direction given by the learned Single Bench, the case of the employee has been considered and they have been absorbed.
In that view of the matter, the matter remains academic and it would not be in the fitness of things for us to go into the merits, so as to explore the possibility of disbursing the status quo prevailed during this long period of about two decades.
The appeals are accordingly, dismissed.
( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. preety
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.