- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal, SAW No.690/1998, is directed against the order dated 28.04.1997 as passed in CWP No.6027/1992 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Nathu Singh Rathore (since deceased); and, while setting aside the impugned orders dismissing the writ petitioner from service, directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects had been that the writ petitioner Nathu Singh Rathore, who was working on the post of constable, came to be dismissed from service by the order dated 16.07.1979 as passed with reference to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and clause (iii) of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 essentially for the reason that he was considered to be a participant in the strike of police personnel in the year 1979. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.07.1979 that was dismissed by the order dated 20.03.1990. The writ petition preferred against the orders aforesaid was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.04.1997 essentially with reference to the order dated 03.05.1996 as passed in CWP No.1249/1988: Prabhu Singh Vs. State. The impugned order dated 28.04.1997 in its entirety reads as under:- "Learned counsel Shri Singhvi places on record the copy of the judgment of this court in case of Prabhu Singh Vs. State [SBCWP No. 1249/88] decided on 3-5-96 and submits that this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this court. Learned counsel Shri Chhangani for the respondents cannot dispute this fact. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal and the subsequent order in appeal are hereby set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits of service, as if no order of dismissal was ever passed against him and he is granted full back wages and continuity of service with other benefits of service. However, there is no order as to costs." This appeal against the aforesaid order dated 28.04.1997 was in fact, considered and allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.2002 after noticing that nobody had appeared for the respondent (writ petitioner) and the fact that though the writ petition was allowed on the basis of the decision in the case of Prabhu Singh (supra) but the said decision had already been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in the order passed in SAW No. 446/1996 (reported in WLR 1998 Raj. 136).
(3.) HOWEVER , one miscellaneous application bearing number 98/2011 was moved on behalf of the legal representatives of the respondent (the writ petitioner) with the submissions that the writ petitioner Nathu Singh had expired on 28.08.2001 and the appeal as filed by the State had abated before passing of the order dated 12.08.2002. Another Division Bench of this Court, in its order dated 09.11.2011, considered it proper to allow the application (MA No. 98/2011) without going into the technicalities; and recalled the order dated 12.08.2002 as earlier passed in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal was ordered to be restored to its number for hearing in accordance with law by allowing the legal representatives of the respondent to be brought on record so as to enable them to contest the appeal.;