SBCWP699/1998 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.699/1998 Bhairav Lal Tripathi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri R.P. Vijay, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel with Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Petitioner Bhairav Lal Tripathi is aggrieved of order of penalty dated 11.05.1976 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for petitioner at the out set has submitted that he filed departmental appeal against aforesaid order of penalty before the Deputy Director, Education, Udaipur (Kota Circle), Udaipur, Rajasthan, but appellate authority did not decide it and same is still pending. In the meantime, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Government has, by instructions dated 19.06.1989, held that in cases where an employee has prosecuted further studies without SBCWP699/1998 // 2 // prior permission of the authority, they may not be penalized and no action be taken against him. The foundation of the very order by which the petitioner was awarded penalty, has thus been taken away. Learned Additional Government Counsel opposed writ petition and submitted that subsequent Circular of the Government dated 19.06.1989 would apply to only pending cases and not to the cases which are already closed and decided. On the question of pendency of appeal, learned counsel submitted that it was in the form of representation therefore it was not entertained. Argument of learned Additional Government Counsel that subsequent Circular of Government would not apply to the case of petitioner because it was issued subsequently, cannot be accepted because the Circular was issued on the same subject matter and same controversy. The Government cannot treat similar situated employees in dissimilar manner when the issue between them is common. Having regard to the facts aforesaid, this writ petition deserved to be allowed at- least on the first prayer by directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal of SBCWP699/1998 // 3 // petitioner within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//