1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2662/95 Mahendra Kumar Kothari vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 26/3/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.C. Joshi for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgement of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 8.9.1994. Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner holding the same time barred. It was contended that the petitioner was initially appointed with the respondents on the post of Assistant Agriculture on 16.11.1964 on ad hoc basis. At that time, the post was within the purview of RPSC but then in 1966, it was taken back from the purview of RPSC. The respondents suddenly terminated the services of the petitioner in 1971. But then he was again appointed on 20.7.1971. The petitioner 2 was therefore entitled to the increments which he had earned in 1964 to 1971 as an artificial break deliberately brought about in between could not deprive the petitioner of this benefit. The petitioner continued to represent the respondents and it was in 1992 that part of his grievances were remedied that respondents agreed to treat the services from 11964 till 1971 as the part of the qualifying service for grant of pension but they did not grant increments. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents by passing the order dated 27.8.1992 have summoned and regularised services of many other identically situated persons and therefore the petitioner ought to have been also granted the benefit of past service from 1964 to 1971. In similar circumstances, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by one Shanti Lal Purohit. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the grievance with regard to non grant of annual grade increments for the period from 1964 to 1971 ought to have been raised in 1971 itself when the 3 petitioner was granted fresh appointment. Mere repeated representations would not extend the period of limitation. Having considered the facts of the case and upon perusal of the judgement of the Tribunal, I find that what is being contended by the petitioner is that his services should be deemed to have been continued throughout and that the order of fresh appointment as granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.7.1971 should be overlooked for that purpose and that the petitioner should be held entitled to get increments from earlier period 1964 to 1971. It was open to the petitioner to have immediately questioned the correctness of the action of the respondents in 1971 when his services were terminated or at least when he was granted fresh appointment. The argument that the petitioner made representations and after filing of the appeal on 13.10.1992 when his grievances were partly remedied, for the rest of the grievances, the cause of action arose in 1992, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner accepted fresh appointment on 20.7.1971 and 4 did not question correctness of either the order of termination or the order by which he was granted fresh appointment, the claim in my view was rightly dismissed as time barred. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/