The court highlighted the significance of expeditious disposal of service matters, the necessity of compliance with Tribunal orders, and the vested legal rights of the petitioner.

1. - Time and again this Court has issued a writ of mandamus for implementation to the orders passed by the Tribunal, a body created under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. The Legislature had in its mind the fact that litigation's in the Civil Courts take years together before the cases are decided and the delay causes hardship not only to the individual employee but also creates several complications. With the object of expeditious disposal of the cases between the employees and the Government, the Legislature thought that a special body having expertise in deciding the service matters may be constituted. More than 15 years have passed, but dissatisfaction amongst the public (constituting the group which is called as Government servants) is increasing. The functioning of the Service Tribunal has left much to be desired. The delay in disposal of the appeal in this case which is of 5 years has taken tall of the petitioner's patience. The matter did not stop here. A period of 1 year and almost 4 months have passed and after having been able to successful before the Tribunal, the petitioner is still waiting for opening of the sealed cover, which contains his fate regarding promotion. According to the petitioner, this may be his first promotion in his service before his retirement in the year 1992.

2. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which has been given final authority under the Rules of Business framed by the Government of Rajasthan under Article 166 of the Constitution of India has in its wisdom, thought it proper to issue administrative instructions for implementation of the orders of the Tribunal, which must be described as half hearted attempts of fill the gaps which can easily be seen in the provisions of the Act of 1976 in the context of effectiveness of its order. The Act of 1976 completely bears silence about the machinery for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal. The experience of this Court is that the Circulars issued by the Department of Personnel are followed more in breach than compliance. Each Officer shows ignorance in the matters as if non-compliance will be of no consequence. This case is yet another illustration of flagrant disregard of the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel, which enjoin upon all authorities including heads of the Department that the orders passed by the Tribunal must be given effect within 3 months and a decision, if any, taken to challenge the decision of the Tribunal before the High Court, such decision should also be taken within 3 months. True it is that some time may be consumed in procuring copy of the order from the tribunal, in getting opinion of the Government counsel, but a period of 6 months cannot in any circumstances be treated as reasonable period. In most of the cases, the Govt. servants themselves present copy of the order before the competent authority in the hope that action will be taken on the same. Lack of sincerity on the part of departmental authorities however permit them to ignore the copies presented by the Government servants themselves.

3. Petitioner in the present case has made a representation, then served notice for demand of justice and then filed the writ petition. Having regard to the facts of the case, the court issued notice and directed the learned Additional Govt. Advocate to accept notice in the court itself. Time was given to the respondents to file reply, but no reply has been filed till date. Even the learned Government counsel feel that the orders passed by the Tribunal must be implemented and the confidence of the public which has already been shaken will be completely shattered if each and every departmental authority continues to flout the order passed by the Tribunal. The only proper course for the court is to give a direction to the respondents to comply with the order of the Tribunal because a legal right has come to be vested in favour of the