AMITAVA ROY,J - (1.) THE instant application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed for condonation of delay of 508 days in preferring the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9434/2009 granting the following reliefs: "Consequently, this writ petition is similarly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant approval and release the grant in aid to the petitioner-Vidhya Pracharani Sabha, Old Station Road, Udaipur as under:- (1) on the arrears resulting from the enhancement of salaries under the 6th Pay Commission; (2) on the arrears of salary paid by it to its employees as a result of revisions of pay scale in accordance with the Rajsthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998; (3) on arrears of dearness allowance to its employees as a result of grant of additional installments of dearness allowance; (4) on the amount of selection grades admissible to the employees under order dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State Government prescribing for grant of selection grade; (5) on leave encashment for which the employees are entitled at par with employees of the State Government."
(2.) WE have heard Mr.R.L.Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General for the applicants-appellants and Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. According to the applicants, after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011, the same alongwith the comments of the learned Government Counsel was forwarded to the officer-incharge and then to the Directorate, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur for passing appropriate orders. The documents received on 2.9.2011 were, thereafter, forwarded to the State Government for necessary decision as to whether an appeal should be filed or not. This was done on 19.9.2011. The Standing Committee constituted for the purpose in its meeting held on 23.9.2011 took a decision to send the file to the Finance Department, which was done on 3.10.2011. After making certain queries, the Finance Department recommended on 15.12.2011 that an appeal be filed. The file was thereafter forwarded to the Law Department on 16.12.2011 for granting appropriate sanction. The Law Department on 8.5.2012 opined that no appeal be filed. According to the applicants, thereafter, notices in the contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 were issued and the same having been received, the matter was referred to the Finance Department, which on 2.1.2013 granted financial sanction subject to the decision in the appeal. The applicants have asserted that by implication it was decided that an appeal ought to be filed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011. The learned Additional Advocate General, Jodhpur having been approached, the appeal was eventually filed and in the process, the delay did occur.
(3.) THE respondent in its reply apart from pleading inordinate delay and absence of any explanation whatsoever for condonation thereof, has averred that the issues adjudicated in the impugned judgment & order dated 18.7.2011 were sub-judice in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2475/2006 Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalaya V/s State of Rajsthan and ors. . and the decision rendered therein on 25.10.2007 was challenged by the applicants in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.02696/2009, which was dismissed on 27.8.2010. The Special Leave Petition filed by the applicants before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also disposed of on 4.7.2011 with the following modification: "Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The short grievance which has been articulated by learned counsel for the State is that the Rules came into force from 1st January, 1993 and the benefit could not have been given from earlier period. We agree with learned counsel for the State. We modify the impugned judgment accordingly and direct that the respondent(s) would be entitled to benefits from 1st January 1993. We are quite conscious of the fact that we are passing this order without giving notice to the respondent (s) because the controversy is very limited and giving notice would cause much greater financial hardship for the respondent (s). In this view of the matter, we are passing this order in absence of the respondent (s). In case the respondent(s) is/are still aggrieved then the respondent(s) would be at liberty to approach this Court. With this modification, the appeals are disposed of. No costs." ;