State of Rajasthan @APPELLANT@Hash Smt. Kanta Saharan

 This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 17/9/2016 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 13546/2015, whereby, the writ petition filed by the State against the order dated 6/1/2015 passed by the Rajasthan Civil

Services Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) was dismissed.

Office has reported the review petition as barred by 444 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with the following

averments:

“3. That after obtaining the certified copy of the order dt.17.9.2016, the Government Counsel sent the certified copy along with its opinion to the

Officer- In Charge of the case. Thereafter, Officer-In Charge of the case sent the file to the higher authorities of the department, seeking further

directions in the matter.

That the sanction of filing the review petition in the matter has been issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, the O.I.C. contacted the office

of the Government Counsel for filing the review petition in the matter. The Government Counsel asked the Officer-inCharge to bring some relevant

information/record pertaining to delay caused in the matter. After collecting the requisite information/record, the Officer-in-charge again contacted the

Government Counsel.

That the Government Counsel dictated the review petition as well as application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act on 8-1-2018, which was ready on 11-1-

2018. Therefore, the same is being filed today i.e. on 12-1-2018 without any further delay in the matter.

That it is most respectfully submitted that the delay caused in filing the review petition is bonafide and due to official procedure and there is no

intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the petitioners and therefore, the delay caused in filing the petition deserves to be condoned and the

petition deserves to be heard and decided on merit.â€​

On notice of the application being issued, learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance and has filed reply to the application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act vehemently contesting the application as well as the review petition on merits.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that delay in filing the review petition has occurred on account of official procedure and that there

was no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the petitioners and, therefore, the delay caused in filing the review petition deserves to be

condoned.

Reliance has been placed on State of Assam & Ors. vs. Susrita Holdings Pvt. Ltd. : 2014 AIR SCW 3084, Executive Officer, Antiyur Town

Panchayat vs. G. Arumugam : (2015) 3 SCC 569 and Krishna Mohan Jamatia vs. State of Tripura & Ors. : AIR 2005 Gauhati 124.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have failed to indicate any reason whatsoever and mere indicating that the delay

was caused due to official procedure and that the same was not intentional or deliberate is not sufficient for seeking condonation of delay.

Reliance was placed on Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 563 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.

Om Prakash Nai & Ors. : D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.916/2012 decided on 22/2/2013 and Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Naresh Kumar

Sharma & Ors. : D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1213/2012 decided on 21/8/2013.

It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the entire review petition is based on the fact that the judgment relied on while

passing the impugned order dated 17/9/2016 has subsequently been reversed by the Full Bench of this Court. It is submitted that besides the fact that

the Full Bench judgment is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the fact that judgment relied on has subsequently been

reversed cannot be a reason for seeking review of the judgment.

Reliance was placed on the explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVIII CPC.

It was prayed that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and review petition itself deserve to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

As quoted hereinbefore, only dates given out by the petitioners are the date of order which is sought to be reviewed i.e. 17/9/2016 and date of filing of

review petition i.e. 12/1/2018, as to what transpired in between for a period of about 15 months has not been indicated at all. Whereafter, a rhetoric

submission regarding filing of review petition being bonafide and delay being caused due to official procedure has been indicated.

It is surprising that despite repeated pronouncements by Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding non-grant of special treatment to State as a litigant, the

petitioners have chosen to file such a laconic and slipshod application seeking condonation of over 14 months’ delay.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General (supra) after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject has laid down

as under:

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and

acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for

several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to

ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated

benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according

to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the

appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.â€​

The judgment in the case of Susrita Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to involvement of public

money/public property and in the case of G. Arumugam (supra) finding recorded was of deliberate attempt by Government officials to defeat justice,

which is neither the issue involved nor the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the said judgments have no application to the facts of the present

case.

In view thereof, the application filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment dated 17/9/2016 being hopelessly barred by limitation and for

lack of any cogent explanation seeking condonation of delay, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be accepted and same is,

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

On insistence of learned counsel for the petitioners to look at the merits of the review petition, I have also peeped into the merit of the review petition.

A perusal of the record indicates that the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Tribunal seeking grant of selection grade w.e.f. the date of

initial appointment i.e. 30/11/1985. The case of the petitioner State in reply before the Tribunal was that as the respondent’s services were

regularized w.e.f. 6/7/1989, she was not entitled to grant of selection grade taking her initial date of appointment as 30/11/1985, however, no document

in support of the said plea was produced before the Tribunal, which resulted in the Tribunal relying on the order dated 7/6/1990 produced by the

respondent confirming her services w.e.f. the initial date of appointment and granted the relief. The State filed writ petition before the High Court

challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. However, in the writ petition no document in support of the plea that order of regularization was passed

on 5/7/1989 was produced. The writ petition, when it came for admission, by order dated 17/9/2016 the same was decided in the following terms:

“Heard.

The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan to challenge the order dated 06.01.2015, passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil

Services Appellate Tribunal in appeal 42/2011, Smt. Kanta Saharan & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Â

The respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal seeking grant of 3rd selection grade from the date

of initial appointment. Reliance was placed on judgment rendered in batch of writ petition led by Bhura Ram Sharan Vs. State & Ors. SB Civil Writ

Petition No.5851/2011 to substantiate their claim.Â

It was also contended that a Coordinate Bench at Jaipur had also allowed to claim of similarly situated employees in SB Civil Writ Petition No.

2843/2015, Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs. Director, Elementary Education & Ors. wherein it was held that the employees would be entitled to 3rd

selection grade from the date of initial appointment.

This Court is of the opinion that until and unless the judgment rendered in Bhura Ram Saharan holds the field and is not set aside, the respondents are

bound by the ratio and directions laid down there under.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.â€​

Surprisingly, even in the review petition, which has been filed after 14 months of passing of the order dated 17/9/2016, the petitioner, except for

making submissions regarding passing of the order dated 5/7/1989, has again not produced any such order, however, strong reliance was sought to be

placed on the said order during the course of submissions and was now attempted to be produced across the bar. The very fact that the petitioner was

having a case since filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by the respondents way back on 20/5/2014, the petitioner chose not to produce the said

document at any stage, cannot now by way of review petition be permitted to make submissions based on the said document, which even now is not

on record.

Besides the above, the entire plea raised pertains to the law having been laid down by the Full Bench by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan

vs. Chandra Ram : D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.589/2015 decided on 7/7/2017, however, in absence of any material, even for applying the said

judgment, the review petition even on merits has no substance. It is besides the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner based on explanation

to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which provision though in view of Section 141 CPC would not apply but based on the principles contained therein would

also be barred.

In view of the above discussion, the review petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed being barred by limitation and for lack of any substance on merit

as well.