- (1.) THERE is delay of 92 days in filing the appeal.
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay of 92 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly. Heard on the question of admission. The appellant has prayed for the relief in the writ application to promote him from the date his juniors were promoted during the year 1975-1981. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to pay the difference of arrears of salary and to revise the pay fixation from the date when juniors were promoted. Petitioner had preferred writ petition before this Court for compliance of the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2108/1993 decided on 27.1.1993. The plea raised by the respondents that no junior person than the petitioner was ever promoted on the post of LDC. Annexure-R/2 was filed by the respondents to show that compliance of the order dated 27.1.1993 was made, which was passed by this Court in CWP No.2108/1993. After considering the reply filed by the respondents, SBCWP No.3601/1998 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2008 holding that no junior person than the petitioner was promoted. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to question the order dated 28.6.1993 (Annex.R/2) afresh. After the decision rendered on 26.5.2008, petitioner has obtained certain information in Right to Information Act and thereafter, preferred a fresh writ petition in the year 2010 on the ground that Chandan Ram, Class IV employee who was promoted by the District Agriculture Officer, Bikaner was junior than the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner's case was to be considered for promotion from the date of order passed for promotion of Chandan Ram, Class IV employee. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ application on the ground that admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee by the Assistant Director Agriculture (Soil Conservation), D.P.A.P., Pali and seniority is to be maintained district-wise for promotion but no documentary evidence is on record that any junior person in the Pali District has been granted promotion on the post of LDC ignoring the claim of the petitioner. As per Rajasthan Class IV Service (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963, the appointing authority for class IV employee is Head of Department and for Pali District, seniority is to be maintained district-wise for Class IV category whereas the appellant was comparing his case to a Class IV employee of Bikaner district. As seniority was not maintained State- wise, no merit has been found in the case set up by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the intra-Court appeal has been preferred.
(3.) MR. Girish Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that junior was in fact promoted, as such, the impugned order is bad in law. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has supported the order passed by the Single Bench and submitted that seniority of the Class IV employee is maintained at district level and not at the State level. Appellant cannot compare his seniority with the employee of different district. Apart from this, he has attracted our attention to the order dated 26.5.2008 passed in CWP No.3601/1998 in which it was found that there is no evidence with regard to promotion of any junior person. Writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench. At the same time, liberty was given to the petitioner to question the order (Annex.R/2) afresh. ;