AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second stay petition filed by the petitioner as well as the writ petition alongwith the original stay application.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal'), by its judgment dated 18.9.1995, ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits. The validity of order dated 18.9.1995 was questioned by the Institution by filing writ petition, which was decided on 6.1.2011 and the special appeal filed by the institution was decided on 16.5.2011 and both were rejected.
Against the order passed by the Executing Court ordering for payment of the monetary benefits, writ petition being SBCWP No.6571/2014 was filed by the Institution, in which, interim order was granted by the Court and another writ petition being SBCWP No.4707/2014 filed by the petitioners herein, this court by order dated 18.3.2015, ordered that operation of the order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the Executing Court ordering for payment, shall remain stayed against petitioners herein, and in the writ petition filed by the Institution, it was directed to make payment. The institution made the payment, based on which, the writ petition SBCWP No.6571/2014 was decided on 19.11.2016.
Whereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 20.4.2017 came to the conclusion that as the respondent No.3 was entitled to be dealt with under the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010, and as the same has not been done by the petitioners, they were directed to do the same, against which, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition being SBCWP No.3781/2018, in which, though the petition was filed on 16.1.2018, except for seeking adjournments, nothing has been done by the petitioners.
Whereafter, it appears that as the directions given in the year 2017, were not followed by the petitioners and nobody appeared on their behalf before the Executing Court, the Executing Court by its order dated 12.7.2019 has ordered for attachment of movable properties of the petitioners.
Now submissions are being made that passing of order dated 20.4.2017 is beyond the powers of the Executing Court and that once the writ petition filed by the petitioners was pending before this Court, there was no occasion for the Executing Court to proceed with the matter.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the Tribunal was justified in proceeding with the matter as after passing of the order dated 20.4.2017, the petitioners chose not to appear before the Executing Court. Apparently, no explanation whatsoever has been given by the petitioners regarding non-appearance before the Executing Court and/or not prosecuting the writ petition pending before this Court.
Now when the Executing Court has ordered for attachment, suddenly everybody has woken up from the slumber and submissions are being made seeking interim order against the orders dated 20.4.2017 and 12.7.2019.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, it is apparent that there is a chequered history of the entire litigation which started in the year 1991, however, apparently the validity of order dated 20.4.2017 passed by the Executing Court is required to be examined as to whether order for purported reinstatement of the petitioner under the Rules of 2010, could have been passed by the Executing Court looking to the nature of order, which was passed by the Tribunal.
In view thereof, issue notice.
Mr. S.K. Malik, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.3. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed, the same be tagged by the office. Requirement of service on respondents No.1, 2 & 4 is dispensed with for the time being.
In the meanwhile and till the next date, the effect and operation of the order dated 20.4.2017 (Annex.9) and order dated 12.7.2019 (filed with the IInd stay application) passed by the Executing Court and further proceedings in Execution Case No.7/2013 pending before respondent No.4, shall remain stayed.
From the observations made by the Executing Court and the manner, in which, the present writ petition has been dealt with by the petitioners, it is apparent that the officer/s-incharge of the writ petition as well as the execution proceedings have been most negligent in their conduct and, therefore, the petitioners are directed to take appropriate proceedings against the concerned officer/s and on the next date, it would be required of the petitioners to place on record the action taken against the said officer/s-incharge.
List the petition on 26.8.2019 alongwith SBCWP No.4707/2014.