Subhash Gupta vs State Chief Commissioner And Ors

Facts of the case are that on 26.7.1993 the appellant was appointed as Clerk Cum Typist by the respondents. He filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/1996 for his regularization. In the meanwhile, petitioner-appellant's services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 8.10.1996. Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30th July, 2009 on the ground that Rajasthan State Scouts and Guides is not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved of the aforementioned order, the petitioner-appellant filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 87/2010, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 4.2.2011. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute and filed a claim case before the Labour Court, but the same was dismissed vide award dated 31.10.2018. He again filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9268/2019 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 30.8.2019 and the learned Single Judge quashed and set-aside the impugned award dated 31.10.2018 and directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakh to the petitioner in lieu of his reinstatement alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition before the Labour Court. He filed S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 270/2019 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2020. Hence, this appeal.

The appellant, who is present in person submits that his remuneration was enhanced twice by the respondents and he continuously discharged his duties for 3 years, 2 months and 14 days till 8.10.1996. He further submits that according to Clause 3 of Chapter III of Rajasthan State Scouts and Guides Employee Service Rules, 1975, an employee is entitled to be regularized on completion of 3 years service. However, contrary to the said provision, he was not regularized by the respondents on the ground of being overage, whereas at the time of appointment, he was not overage. Other similarly situated persons were regularized and/or were granted regular pay scale. He further submits that for severance of service, the appellant was not at fault. The respondents as well as the Courts below have utterly failed to consider the report dated 4.4.2013 submitted by the Assistant State Commissioner under the directions of the State Chief Commissioner. He further submits that once the termination order was held to be unjustified, he was entitled to be reinstated in service.

In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anirudh Dwivedi Versus State Chief Commissioner, Bharat Scout and Guide and Another reported in [2009 (2) MPLJ 166] MANU/MP/0007/2009 as also the case of Dr. Mumtaz Jahan Khan Versus The Bharat Scouts & Guides and others (Writ Petition No. 6710/2005).

Heard the appellant, who is present in person and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

So far as the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anirudh Dwivedi and Dr. Mumtaz Jahan Khan (supra) are concerned, they do not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason that in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner(s) therein was/were regularly appointed employees of the respondent, whereas in the instant case, the appellant had filed the writ petition seeking his regularization, which was denied on the ground of his being over- age.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition categorically observed that termination order was passed on 8.10.1996 and for the last 23 years, the appellant did not discharge his service. Therefore, for such prolonged severance of service, the learned Single Judge deemed it just and proper to grant compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakh to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. So far as the submission of the appellant with regard to his reinstatement was concerned, the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 26.2.2020 in review petition observed that such submission was not a ground to file a review petition and the review petition on that ground was not maintainable. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are just and proper. We are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

The appellant is also found not to have filed any appeal against the order dated 30.8.2019 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9268/2019. The special appeal is found to have been filed only against the order dated 26.2.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 270/2019. In view of the aforesaid, this special appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Even otherwise, this special appeal has been filed with delay of 200 days. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, neither the fact of filing the review petition by the appellant has been mentioned nor any prayer in regard thereto has been made. Delay in filing the special appeal has not been explained satisfactorily. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to condone the delay and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed.

For the aforesaid reasons, the special appeal is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.