[2026:RJ-JP:34012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14746/2025 CNR: RJHC020820892025 | URN: CW / 33369U / 2025 Dharmendra Kumar S/o Nekram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Baghai, Post Jatoli, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Additional Director, Police Armed Battalion, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Inspector General Of Police, Armed Battalion-Second, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 5. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Rac, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. The Commandant, Hadirani Mahila Battalion (I.r.), Ajmer. 7. The Company Commander E Company, Reserve Police Line, Police Commissionate, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, AAAG with Ms. Epsa Nangliya for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 21/08/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure-3), whereby the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and the order dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, though, on the ground of it being barred by limitation. 2. Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that he is confining his submissions to [2026:RJ-JP:34012] (2 of 2) [CW-14746/2025] the extent that a direction be issued to the learned Appellate Authority to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the learned Appellate Authority having due power and authority under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, to condone the delay in filing the appeal, such discretion was not exercised by it and thus, the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 to the extent it fails to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consider and adjudicate upon the appeal of the petitioner on merits, deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, though has opposed the writ petition, however, submits that in the event the learned Appellate Authority is directed to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits, he has no objection to such a direction being issued. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking note of the obtained facts and circumstances and the fairness expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on account of it being barred by limitation. 7. The Appellate Authority is further directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on its merits, expeditiously in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J 30/DANISH USMANI