- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4770/2005 (Baldev Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 9/4/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Ashvini Swami, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Dy. Government counsel. In this case, petitioner is challenging the validity of order of compulsory retirement dated 28/7/2000, so also the order dated 27/6/2005 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, Jaipur. According to the facts of the case, by an order dated 28/7/2000 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest the petitioner was given compulsory retirement in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 53 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. A challenge to the aforesaid order was given by the petitioner by way of writ petition before this Court. Said writ petition was dismissed on 15/9/2002. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court. During pendency of appeal, the respondent Forest Department while acting upon the representations submitted by similarly situated persons, withdrew the order of compulsory retirement relating to those persons. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for withdrawal of writ petition as well as special appeal in order to approach the review committee. The Division - 2 - Bench of this Court by an order dated 20/9/2004 permitted the petitioner withdraw the writ petition as well as special appeal. The order dated 20/9/2004 reads as under:- “In view of the withdraw of the writ petition, the judgment of the learned Single Judge shall not prejudicially affect the consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Review Committee. Accordingly, the application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal is dismissed.” After withdrawal of writ petition as well as special appeal, a representation was made by the petitioner but that representation came to be rejected vide order Annex.7 on the ground that representation was submitted at a belated stage. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the validity of rejection order of his representation, so also original order of compulsory retirement dated 28/7/2000. Upon perusal of the impugned order Annex.7, which is passed by the Deputy Secretary on 27/6/2005, it is apparent that this order was passed by the Deputy Secretary without placing the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Review Committee on the ground that petitioner has filed representation after long delay. In my opinion, rejection of petitioner's representation vide Annex.7 by Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of - 3 - Raj.,Jaipur on the ground of delay is unwarranted and illegal because petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court. After withdrawal of writ petition as well as special appeal so as to approach the Review Committee because cases of compulsory retirement of other similarly situated persons were allowed, the petitioner immediately filed representation for reviewing his case with regard to compulsory retirement from service. But unfortunately, representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay by the Deputy Secretary without placing the same before the Review Committee. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Order Annex.7 dated 27/6/2005 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of Raj. Jaipur is set aside. Respondents are directed to place the representation of petitioner for the purpose of reviewing the order of compulsory retirement before the Review Committee and Review Committee shall consider and decide the representation of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. Pankaj Baweja