1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO.5/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1452/05 Padam Singh vs. State Date of order : 18/1/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the applicant-State. ****** This application has been filed by the State of Rajasthan for recalling the judgement dated 24.9.2009 by which the writ petition of the petitioner Padam Singh was allowed and the respondent-State in the writ petition was directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and pay to him pension and all his retiral dues with interest @ 12% per annum within a period of three months from the date copy of that judgement is served upon him. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the Court was not arraise of the fact that actually charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 30.4.2001 and because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the retiral dues of the petitioner could not be paid. 2 Upon being pointedly asked, the learned counsel submitted that the reply to the charge sheet was filed on 1.6.01 and in this case, the reply to the writ petition was filed on 12.4.06 and therein nowhere it is stated that charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. This fact was exactly noticed by the Court when the writ petition was decided. Even if the charge sheet was issued to the original writ petitioner on 30.4.2001, the fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner remained inconclusive till the writ petition was decided on 24.9.2008 and today also it is still said to be pending. Apart from the fact that the charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner, this Court also allowed the writ petition on the ground that petitioner who retired on 27.2.2002 cannot be made to suffer for inordinate period to get his retiral dues. The fact which was not brought to the notice of the Court which the respondents were required to clearly state in their reply to the writ petition, the judgement cannot be said to suffer from any 3 error apparent on the face of the record. I do not find any merit in this recalling application, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/