1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5809/2008 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Loon Karan Kankaria & Anr. Date of Order :: 19.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S. Ladrecha, for the petitioner. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the judgment dated 31.3.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur accepting an appeal preferred by the respondent/government- servant. In brief facts of the case are that the respondent/government-servant entered in the services of the petitioner being appointed as Lecturer in the year 1968. He was allowed to continue in service in the year 1969 till the end of educational session and so also in the educational session of 1970-71 and 1971-72. In the year 1972-73 though there was no reason available with the petitioner, the services of the respondent/government-servant were discontinued and being aggrieved by the same he preferred a writ petition being numbered as SBCW No. 1344/72 before this Court and that came to be dismissed as withdrawn for the reason that during pendency of the writ petition the respondent/government-servant was taken in service. In the year 1997 an another petition for writ was preferred by the respondent/ government-servant claiming 2 regularisation of his services for the period he remained out of employment in the educational session of 1972-73. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.11.2000 with a direction to the petitioner to consider and decide the representation submitted by the respondent/government-servant. The representation submitted by the respondent/government-servant was rejected, hence, he preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and that came to be accepted by the order impugned. Learned Tribunal held that as per the provisions of Rule 27(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 the appellant/government-servant was entitled for getting the break in service regularized. While assailing validity of the judgment aforesaid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent/government-servant raised the dispute regarding break in service after a lapse of 28 years, and therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced as the respondent/government-servant at the first instance raised the dispute regarding condonation of break in service by way of filing the writ petition before this Court and while disposing of that petition a direction was given to the petitioner to consider and decide the 3 representation submitted by the government-servant. On disposal of the representation on merits the appeal was filed by the respondent/government-servant before the Tribunal. As such, there is no question of any delay in the matter. Besides, the cause of the government-servant is recurring in nature, and therefore, no question of delay arises. The petition for writ is having no merit. Same is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '