2021 INSC 0623
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6205 OF 2021
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.           ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURJI DEVI                                     ..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   01.03.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special
Appeal   Writ  No.   1045  of   2018,  by   which   the   Division   Bench
of   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has
confirmed the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed and
1

set   aside   the   order   of   termination   dated   16.12.1996
dismissing   the   late  husband  of   the   respondent   from   service,
the State of Rajasthan and others have preferred the present
appeal.  
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under:­
2.1 That   the   late   husband   of   the   respondent   herein   late   Shri
Rameshwar   Lal   was   serving   as   Gram   Sevak.   He   was
suspended   from   service   vide   order   dated   08.01.1996   on   the
ground   of   willful   absence   from   duty   and   not   completing   the
audit.   The   administrative   committee   of   Panchayat   Samiti
Nokha   in   its   meting   dated   26.02.1996   took   a   decision   to
remove him from service. That thereafter a public notice was
published   in   the   daily   news   paper   on   14.03.1996,   whereby
Rameshwar Lal was directed to join his duties within a period
of 15 days with explanation. Even after completion of 15 days
the   said   Rameshwar   Lal   did   not   join   his   duties.   Thereafter
the services of the said Rameshwar Lal – late husband of the
respondent   were   terminated   vide   order   dated   16.12.1996
invoking   the   provisions   of   Section   91   (3)   of   the   Rajasthan
Panchayati   Raj   Act,   1994   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act
2

1994)   and   Rule   86   of   Rajasthan   Services   Rules,   1951.   It
appears that the late husband of the respondent preferred an
appeal against the order of termination issued under Section
91   (4)   of   the   Act   1994   before   the   District   Establishment
Committee,   Zila   Parishad,   Bikaner.   During   the   pendency   of
the said appeal the employee – Rameshwar Lal passed away
on   18.09.2009.   That   thereafter   the   respondent   herein
preferred   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   being   S.B.
Civil   Writ   Petition   No.11405   of   2011   challenging   the
dismissal/termination  order   dated  16.12.1996.  By  judgment
and   order   dated   17.01.2017,   the   learned   Single   Judge
allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the
order   of   termination   dated   16.12.1996   and   directed   the
appellants   to   give   all   consequential   benefits   to   the
respondent   treating   her   husband   to   be   superannuated   on
16.12.1996.   The   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   has   been   confirmed   by   the   Division   Bench,   by
the impugned judgment and order. Hence the present appeal.
3. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the respective parties at length. 
3

4. The   facts   which   emerged   are   that   the   late   husband   of   the
respondent   was   removed/dismissed   from   service   by   order
dated 16.12.1996. He preferred an appeal which was pending
before   the   appellate   authority.   During   the   pendency   of   the
appeal,   the   late   husband   of   the   respondent   –   employee
died/passed   away   in   the   year   2009.   If   the   late   husband   of
the   respondent   would   not   have   been   terminated/dismissed
he would have attained the age of superannuation in the year
1999.  After  the  death   of  the  employee  –  late  husband  of  the
respondent she did not pursue the appeal, maybe she might
not be aware of filing/pendency of the appeal. That thereafter
the   respondent   –   widow   of   the   employee   filed   a   writ   petition
before the High Court in the year 2012. Thus, by the time the
respondent   preferred   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court,
15   years   had   passed   from   the   date   of   termination   and   even
approximately 13 years from the date on which the employee
would have attained the age of superannuation i.e. from the
year   1999.   Considering   the   aforesaid   facts   and
circumstances,  as such,  the   learned  Single  Judge ought  not
to   have   entertained   the   writ   petition   in   the   year   2012,
challenging   the   order   of   termination   passed   on   16.12.1996,
4

on   the   ground   of   delay   and   laches   alone.   At   this   stage,   it   is
required   to   be   noted   that   even   despite   the   fact   that   it   was
specifically   prayed   by   the   respondent   in   writ   petition   before
the learned Single Judge to direct the authority to decide the
appeal   preferred   by   her   husband,   the   learned   Single   Judge
despite   the   above   prayer   and   the   pending   appeal,   entered
into   the   merits   of   the   case   and   quashed   and   set   aside   the
order of termination dated 16.12.1996.
5. The   submission   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   is   that   the
termination on 16.12.1996 was absolutely illegal and against
the   principles   of   natural   justice   is   concerned,   once   we   hold
that   the   writ   petition   was   barred   by   delay   and   laches,
thereafter   the   merits   are   not   required   to   be   considered.   As
observed   hereinabove,   the   learned   Single   Judge   erred   in
entertaining   the   petition   in   the   year   2012   challenging   the
order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground
of   delay   and   laches   and   more   particularly   when   even
otherwise   if   the   termination   order   would   not   have   been
passed   the   deceased   employee   would   have   retired   on
attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999. 
5

6. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order
dated   01.03.2019   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   as   well   as   the   judgment   and   order   dated   17.01.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and
set   aside.   In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there
shall be no order as to costs.     
…………………………………J.
         (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
October  07, 2021.
6