1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1168 of 1997 SMT ANAND KAUR V/S STATE & ANR Mr. MUKESH VYAS, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI, A.G.A. & Mr. RN UPADHYAY, for the respondent Date of Order : 29.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 27.8.1997 deciding two writ petitions with consent of the parties, and obviously against such consent order no appeal would have laid. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties what we find is that the present case has been conducted by either side right from inception with utmost lack of care and attention as if nobody was concerned with the matter. The pleadings taken in the writ petition, and the pleadings taken in the reply make a big comedy of carelessness inasmuch as the petitioner-appellant simply claims that she is not being given revised pay scales while the respondents in the reply has taken self contradictory 2 pleadings, inasmuch as vide Annexure-4 she was given the pay scale of 110-230 since 1.10.1974, while in para-3 of the reply it was stated that she was given pay scale of 110-230 w.e.f. 1.4.1972. Then, in subsequent paras it was pleaded that she was not entitled to this pay scale, rather she was entitled to pay scale of 75-140 only, and with this uncertain, vague and conflicting pleadings, the matter has been decided by the learned Single Judge, by directing that the petitioner would be given revised pay scale. It is not known as to which revised pay scale was to be given i.e. based on 75-140 or 110-230, and if on the basis of pay scale 110-230, treating the petitioner to have been given that pay scale w.e.f. what date. All these questions were required to be canvassed to the Court, i.e. before the learned Single Judge, by the either side of the litigation, but as appears, that nobody has bothered about it. This compelled us to make observations about careless conduct of the litigation. However, if we were to stand on technicalities, we would have adopted the course of lesser resistance and would have dismissed the appeal, but then that would be resulting into running away from considerations of justice. Admittedly the appellant has been given pay scale of 110-230 w.e.f. 1.10.1974, which order had never been recalled, or set aside, nor has it lost its efficacy 3 otherwise. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner-appellant was required to be given the revised pay scale, as revised from time to time, treating the appellant to be in the pay scale of 110-230 w.e.f. 1.10.1974, at the relevant basic pay. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and it is directed, by way of clarification, that the petitioner- appellant be given revised pay scale as became applicable from time to time, treating the petitioner to have been given the pay scale of 110-230 w.e.f. 1.10.1974. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. This exercise be undertaken, and completed within a period of three months from today. It is further directed that in case the respondent fail to comply with this order, it will be open to the appellant to have this order enforced by filing proper execution application under Order 21 C.P.C. before the concerned principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction who shall execute this order in accordance with that provision as if it were a decree of civil court. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/