Skip to content


Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Review (Writ) Petition No. 140 of 2014 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6313 of 2007
Judge
AppellantBrij Mohan Sharma
RespondentState of Rajasthan and Others
Excerpt:
..... petitioner sought to recall of order passed by high court, wherein high court disposed of petition as having become infructuous and no direction can be given, as prayed for by petitioner court held high court passed order, when lawyers were observing strike and on statement made by officer-in-charge, deputy conservator of forests, who was present before court now petitioner submits that it has caused serious prejudice to petitioner and even after voluntary retirement of petitioner from services of forest department, nothing on account of pension, gratuity etc. has been paid to petitioner petitioner also submits that voluntary retirement application was filed by petitioner under coercion of respondent authorities, and thus, private respondents have also been impleaded in..........under section 5 of the limitation act, the same is allowed. delay of 20 days in filing the present review petition is thus condoned. 3. the present review petition has been filed by the writ petition, seeking recall of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by this court in s.b.civil writ petition no.6313/2007 - brij mohan sharma vs. state and ors., disposing of the writ petition as having become infructuous. the relevant portion of the order dated 07.08.2014 is quoted below:- "1. the lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various supreme court decisions. 2. the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "it is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate.....
Judgment:

By The Court (Oral):

1. This review petition is reported to be time barred by 20 days.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. Delay of 20 days in filing the present review petition is thus condoned.

3. The present review petition has been filed by the writ petition, seeking recall of the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6313/2007 - Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State and Ors., disposing of the writ petition as having become infructuous. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.08.2014 is quoted below:-

"1. The lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(A) That, the orders dated 20th July, 2000 (annex. 9) and 30th Sep., 2000 (annex. 10) voluntary retiring the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(B) That, consequent to aforesaid it may be directed that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits

(C) That, alternatively the respondents may kindly be directed to conclude the inquiry initiated for the purpose of determining if the voluntary retirement has been forced upon the petitioner, with a reasonable time.

(D) That, in case such an inquiry is permitted the respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioner something by way of subsistence allowance so that he can maintain himself.

(E) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner;

(F) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

3. None present for the petitioner.

4. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Officer-in-Charge, Dy. C.F., Jalore, is present-in-person. He submits that the VRS Application submitted by the petitioner was accepted way back in the year 2000 and thereafter, vide application dated 06.03.2002, a copy of which has been placed on record today, the petitioner himself had accepted that he had taken voluntary retirement from the services of the Forest Department of the Government on 30.09.2000 and, therefore, he is submitting the necessary form for getting the amount of his State Insurance Policy No. 457355. The Officer- in-Charge submits that the said payment of the insurance claim has been made to the petitioner.

5. The present writ petition filed on the alleged ground that the signatures of the present petitioner were obtained under coercion. This Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has become infructuous at this stage and no direction by way of mandamus can be given, as prayed for by the petitioner, now at this stage in view of his own acceptance of the fact of having taken voluntary retirement from the services.

6. The respondents have also denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner and, therefore, obviously, the disputed questions of facts arise in the matter and such disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by this Court in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith."

4. The said order was passed when the lawyers were observing strike and on the statement made by Mr.Rajesh Sharma, Officer-in-charge, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jalore, who was present before the Court, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

5. Now, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr.R.K.Purohit submits it has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and even after voluntary retirement of the petitioner from the services of the Forest Department, nothing on account of pension, gratuity etc. has been paid to the petitioner. He also submits that the voluntary retirement application was filed by the petitioner under coercion of the respondent authorities, and thus, the private respondents have also been impleaded in the writ petition, and therefore, the matter deserves to be heard and decided again on merits.

6. On the other hand, Mr.S.R.Paliwal, learned Additional Government Counsel representing the Forest Department submits that the order though was passed during the period in which the lawyers were observing strike, however, the private respondents are also involved in the case and they may have their own say in the matter.

7. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court considers it expedient to recall the order dated 07.08.2014 and restore S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6313/2007 - Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State and Ors. to its original position prior to 07.08.2014.

8. Accordingly, the present review petition is allowed and the order dated 07.08.2014 is recalled. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6313/2007 - Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State and Ors. may now be restored to its original position and be listed before the regular Bench. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //