Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS review petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking review of judgment/order of this court dated 29.05.2014, whereby as many as 34 writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions. This review petition has been filed with enormous delay of 221 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed seeking condonation of delay also do not explain the delay by any sufficient cause. Reasons given for condonation of delay are cryptic and unspecific. All that has been stated is that after writ petition was allowed by this court and the certified copy was obtained, the counsel for the Government sent the same to the Government along -with legal opinion. Nothing has been stated as to when the certified copy was obtained and when the opinion was sent to the State Government. All that has been stated is that the administrative department, after examining the matter, sent the same to the Law Department for taking final decision with regard to filing of the appeal or the review petition. The matter was placed before the litigation committee which decided to file the review petition. Hence this review petition.
(2.) THOUGH , the review petition could have been dismissed being filed with enormous delay, yet the same is considered on merits. The writ -petitioner approached this court, inter -alia, with plea that he was appointed as Lecturer as substitute in place of the regularly recruited Lecturer, on account of his proceeding to undertake research work or for doing M.Phil or Ph.D. under "Teacher Research Fellowship". Grievance of the writ -petitioner was that the Government deducted the salary payable to him for the period of summer break when the college remain closed on completion of academic session and reopened at the commencement of new academic session. As per Clause 6.4 of the Guidelines for Special Scheme of Faculty Development Programme for Colleges for the XI Plan (2007 -2012), the University Grants Commission decided to pay to the substitute Lecturers/Teachers the minimum scale of pay, but the review -petitioners are not only not paying his salary for the period of summer break but also insisting upon the writ -petitioner to furnish an undertaking that he shall not claim such salary. Reliance was placed on various judgments of this Court.
(3.) CLAIM of the writ -petitioner was contested by the review -petitioners relying on judgment of this Court in Ms. Savita Samriya v. State of Rajasthan and Others - : 2009 (4) WLC (Raj.) 574, and various other judgments of this court.;