- (1.) THE formal defects, pointed out by the office, are waived. All these Special Appeals, arising out of the judgments passed by learned Single Judge, are categorized as the matters relating to employment of respondents as 'Store Munshis'. The Special Appeals have been filed with substantial delay, for which delay condonation applications have been filed.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned AAG appearing for the State of Rajasthan and learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that considering the special facts and circumstances the delay, which even otherwise has been satisfactorily explained, is liable to be condoned. All the delay condonation applications are consequently allowed.
(3.) IN a batch of special appeals, led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 546/2014 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anil Acharya), filed at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur challenging similar orders with little variation of facts with regard to the date and the status of initial appointment and the category of posts, the issues raised are almost the same, by the judgment dated 20.11.2014, the entire batch of special appeals was decided by a detailed order, holding that all the writ petitioners, who were respondents in the Special Appeals, were not entitled to the benefits of the judgment dated 03.02.2012 passed at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 845/2011 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Hem Singh and Ors.) as well as the judgment dated 23.08.2012 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 970/2012 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lal Chand Sharma), and that each case requires scrutiny. It was pointed out in the hearing at Jodhpur that both at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur, a large number of writ petitions were filed, in which unauthorised concessions were given by counsels appearing for the State of Rajasthan and on which, orders were passed similar to that of Hem Singh and Lal Chand's cases, whereas the facts, in each case, are different. It was pointed out that an exercise of screening was carried in the year 2007, in which it was found that many persons, who appointed as Beldars and Helpers in lower grade were given permanent and semi permanent status and were also promoted in their own trade, were not entitled to the benefits of promotions and arrears treating their initial appointment as 'Store Munshi'. After the judgment in Hem Singh's case (supra) and Lal Chand Sharma's case (supra), all categories of employees rushed to the Court seeking the same benefits as in those cases for promotions, upgradation and arrears, on the ground that they were initially appointed on the post of Store Munshi. Learned Single Judges, in almost all the writ petitions, without adverting the facts of the case, have granted the reliefs in the same terms as in Hem Singh's case (supra) and Lal Chand Sharma's case (supra).;