CSA 677/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.677/07 State & Ors. Versus Mani Ram DATE OF ORDER :: 23/01/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. M.S. Raghav, AAG, for appellants [defendant] Mr. B.L. Agrawal ] for respondent [plaintiff] Mr. Ratan Kaushik ] *** Instant second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellants assailing judgment & decree of learned trial Judge dated 10th February, 2005, which has been affirmed by learned first appellate court vide judgment & decree dated 6th January, 2007. Instant appeal has been filed as pointed out by the office with the delay of 78 days. Application has been filed u/s.5 seeking permission for condonation. But application does not disclose any reasonable cause for which delay has been caused in filing appeal. Only fact which has been referred is against the judgment & decree of first appellate court dated 6th January, 2007. On 4th July, 2007 officer in-charge was appointed and he contacted the counsel on 9th July and accordingly, appeal was preferred, this in opinion of this court is not a proper explanation for the delay which has been caused in filing instant appeal. CSA 677/07 [2] Since record has been summoned by this court vide order dated 19th September, 2007 and the respondent is also represented by his counsel and with their assistance the court has gone through the record as well. Only dispute which was raised by plaintiff- respondent that he was working as Class IV employee, joined on 6th October, 1994 on temporary basis. It was alleged by him that no such resignation has been submitted/tendered by him on 29th January, 1996. As such, the order accepting resignation is bad in law. Both the courts below recorded concurrent finding holding that the alleged letter of resignation was not signed by the respondent-plaintiff. In support of it, statement of PW-6 Ramesh Kumar, who was hand writing expert summoned by the court, was also recorded and he in his examination-in-chief has deposed that signature on alleged letter of resignation Ex.44 does not tally with the specimen signature of which reference has been made by learned trial Judge also while deciding issue No.4. After taking into consideration the material, learned trial Judge finally observed that respondent-plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement, since there was no resignation ever tendered by him, but on the basis of principles of “no work no pay” arrears of pay has been disallowed and said decree has been affirmed by the first appellate court as well. It has been informed to this court that in compliance of decree, respondent-plaintiff has CSA 677/07 [3] now been reinstated in service vide order dated 1st January, 2008. However, it has been referred that it will be subject to decision of pending appeal preferred by appellant. It has also been informed by appellants' counsel that execution proceedings, which were initiated by respondent- plaintiff, where officers of the government have been summoned for non-compliance of decree under its order dated 3rd January, 2008. Since both the courts have recorded concurrent finding with respect to issue no.4, which is duly supported by statement of PW-6 as well. There is no substantial question of law which emerge for consideration in the instant appeal. This court is not satisfied with the delay and so also on merits. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that in view of decree being complied with execution proceedings in lieu thereof stand dropped. Copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court as well for necessary compliance. Record be sent back to trial court. [AJAY RASTOGI],J. FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.677CSA2007 23-1.doc