JUDGMENT :

1. In the present batch of appeals, the scope of the controversy involved is identical. Therefore, considering the fact that the appeals warrant adjudication on common question(s) of law, with consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1055/2022 titled as The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar and Ors., is being taken up as the lead case.

2. The instant appeal is filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India whereby a challenge is made to the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5385/2021 titled as ‘State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.’ whereby the writ petition was disposed of with certain modification(s) in the order impugned dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

3. The ineluctable factual matrix, necessary for discerning the nuances of the contentions made in the present appeal, are as follows: 3/1. That respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar, was initially appointed as Constable in Jaipur City, but was assigned seniority below the respondent no.2 herein, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, who was transferred to Jaipur City, on his own request from District Pali and who, indisputably, joined services at Jaipur City after the joining of respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar. 3/2. Being aggrieved of the purported error in ascertaining the seniority and the consequential promotion of the officers by the State, respondent no.1 approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘Tribunal’), claiming seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits. 3/3. That the learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1989’), which provide that the person transferred to another District shall be ranked junior most in the particular rank in the District to which he is transferred, vide order dated 18.09.2020, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 herein, and awarded in his favour all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion.

3/4. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-State filed a writ petition assailing the order dated 18.09.2020. While adjudicating upon the merits of the case, vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021, learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Tribunal, whilst modifying the same to the extent of substituting the monetary consequential benefits so awarded, with notional benefits only. Aside from the said modification, the award of seniority and promotion was maintained by the learned Single Judge, by concurring with the rationale adopted by the Tribunal and placing reliance upon Rule 36 of the Rules of 1989.

3/5. As a result, being dissatisfied with the order dated 17.11.2021, the appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rajesh Mahrishi, appearing on behalf of the State, has at the very outset contended that the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 has been passed in contravention and/or non-consideration of material aspects, capable of pursuing the court for arriving at a contradictory finding. In this regard, it was argued that the preliminary objection raised by the State before the learned Tribunal, qua delay and laches, on part of the respondent no.1-Mr Anil Kumar in approaching the Tribunal, was not duly and/or adequately considered by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2020. Thereafter, even the learned Single Judge while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, failed to consider the aspect of substantial delay on part of the respondent no.1 in approaching the Tribunal. As a result, a palpable error crept in the impugned orders dated 17.11.2021 as well as 18.09.2020.

5. In order to substantiate upon the aspect of delay and laches, learned AAG argued that respondent no.1