PHOOL CHAND SON OF SHRI PUNYA RAM v. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
SAW/792/2022 · 2025-01-06
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Uma Shanker Vyas
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17858 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17858 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:590-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 792/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2165/2016 Phool Chand Son Of Shri Punya Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Gram Ismailpur, Tehsil Kishagarhbas, District Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Van Vibhag, Bass Ka Choraha, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Aswal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aditi Vats on behalf of Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order 06/01/2025
1. Heard.
2. Though learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant having been initially appointed way back in the year 1991, his entitlement to semi permanent status ought to be considered with reference to the initial date of appointment, we are afraid, in view of the order dated 24.11.2003 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1569/2001, which has attained finality, such claim is liable to be rejected.
3. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that vide
order dated 24.11.2003 passed in the aforesaid writ petition in earlier round of litigation, it was held that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement only w.e.f. 16.06.2000. The effect would be that
[2025:RJ-JP:590-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-792/2022] the benefit of previous service could not be claimed by the appellant, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/35