[2025:RJ-JP:10022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16821/2024 Deepchand Sankhla S/o Ratan Lal Sankhla, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Near Water Tank, Ward No- 19, Post Office Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chairman And Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Raj. 2. The Executive Director (Admn.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Raj. 3. The Zonal Manager, Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam, Sikar Zone, Sikar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Dass For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/03/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the Appellate Authority, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, has been rejected on the ground of barred by limitation. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 29.09.2021, the petitioner was punished with a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 27.10.2021, [2025:RJ-JP:10022] (2 of 3) [CW-16821/2024] before the Appellate Authority. Counsel submits that when decision of the appeal was not communicated to the petitioner, he filed a representation on 18.04.2024. Counsel submits that the said representation of the petitioner was treated as time barred appeal, while the appeal was preferred by the petitioner within the period of limitation that is prior to expiry of thirty days. Counsel submits that it appears that the respondents have lost the memo of appeal, that is why, the same was not decided, hence, under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its merits. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, before the Appellate Authority on 27.10.2021, and when the same was not decided, a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 18.04.2024, which was treated as time barred even though the appeal was preferred within the period of limitation, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 is not tenable in the eye of law and is liable to the quashed and set aside. 4. The instant writ petition stands disposed of. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified [2025:RJ-JP:10022] (3 of 3) [CW-16821/2024] copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all the respective parties, strictly in accordance with law. 5. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/9