- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed with delay of 269 days. The delay has been explained with effect from 16.06.2014, whereas the writ petition was disposed of on 21.11.2013.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman states that in similar circumstances, in which Dr. M.S. Kachhawa, Additional Government Counsel was not present, and that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the Circular of the Government dated 23.10.2013, in which the respondent was proposed to forgo backwages upto the date of reinstatement, and in pursuance thereof, the respondent had agreed to forgo backwages and wages upto the date of reinstatement, which may be within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, the earlier Special Appeals were decided.
(3.) In similar circumstances, we had dismissed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1494/2014 [Range Forest Extension Officer, Thanagazi, District Alwar & Anr. v. Bhawani Shankar & Anr.] vide order dated 05.12.2014 , in which we had observed as follows: "1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.11.2013, by which the writ petition, alongwith second stay application, were disposed of, with directions to reinstate the respondent in employment, as he had agreed to forgo back wages upto the date of reinstatement, in view of the circular of the State Government dated 23.10.2013. 3. This Special Appeal is reported to be time barred by 230 days. 4. In the application for condonation of delay, the delay has been explained with effect from 24.6.2014, whereas the writ petition was disposed of on 22.11.2013. It is stated that the counsel for the Department had not appeared, and that by an error his appearance was recorded. The judgment was passed in his absence. 5. We find that the name of Dr. M.S. Kachhawaha, Additional Government Counsel is noted representing the Range Forest Extension Officer & Another. In case, his presence was wrongly noted, the appropriate remedy was to file a recall application. 6. The judgment is based upon a circular dated 23.10.2013, by which the State Government, intending to dispose of the cases through Mega Lok Adalat, had provided that preference may be given to settle the cases on lump sum payment, instead of back wages, where the workman had worked for less than one year. In other cases, the workman may be reinstated, provided he gives up back wages, and if there is a vacancy. 7. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. 8. The application for condonation of delay as well as the Special Appeal are dismissed, with liberty to the appellants to file recall application before learned Single Judge.";