Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents in failing to pass any order on the application dated 12.2.2007 submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and the order Annexure -8 dated 23.11.2007 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service for alleged unauthorized absence.
(2.) THE case is a classic example of rank apathy and failure of the departmental authorities in adhering to the lawful practices and procedures and has landed a hapless employee to resort to an unwarranted litigation adding to the ever growing coffers of cases pending in the Courts without any justification whatsoever. It is not in dispute that the petitioner though belatedly preferred an appeal against the order Annexure -8 dated 23.11.2007. The appeal though admittedly received by the respondent authorities was not decided for more than six years despite the authorities being put to notice when the copy of the writ petition was served to them.
(3.) THE order Annexure -8 dated 23.11.2007 is assailed on the ground that the same was passed without following the mandatory procedure of holding enquiry as prescribed under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962. It being the undisputed position on record that the order terminating the petitioner from services for his so -called unauthorized absence was passed without holding any disciplinary enquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent had, on the previous date sought some time to instruct the officers to pass an appropriate order in the matter and set the things right. Today Mr. Bhansali has placed on record a copy of the order dated 11.2.2015, as per which, the order dated 23.11.2007 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service has been quashed while deciding the departmental appeal dated 23.11.2008 preferred by the petitioner. As a consequence, his request for voluntary retirement has been accepted w.e.f. 16.2.2007. Thus, the only question which remains alive for Court's consideration is regarding the consequential benefits admissible to the petitioner.;