HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 354/2022
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22555/2018
Madan Singh Rawat Son Of Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About
58 Years, R/o New Basti, Madanpura, Post Rasulpura, District
Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
Ajmer Central Co Operative Bank, Through Its Managing
Director, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rachit Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 01/07/2022 Heard.
With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. Challenge is made to order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the appellant's claim for regularization in service as also for pension after retirement has been rejected.
Short and pin pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge, swayed by the order of the Division Bench passed in earlier round of (Downloaded on 04/07/2022 at 09:57:31 PM) (2 of 3) [SAW-354/2022] proceedings, has not gone into the merits of the claim of the regularization and pension, whereas, the order passed earlier by the Division Bench on 22.03.2018 does not come in the way of the appellant in filing a separate petition claiming regularization and pension.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge appears to have rejected the claim because the Division Bench earlier recorded a finding that the Single Judge could not have traveled beyond the scope of award to grant a relief which was not claimed by the present appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appellant's claim for regularization and any other claim including the claim of pension was required to be considered on its own merits. The order passed in earlier round of litigation related to validity of the award of the reinstatement, which was challenged by the Bank before the High Court. The learned Single Judge passed an order on 02.11.2017, not only affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, but issued additional directions for regularization etc. When the matter traveled up to Division Bench in appeal, the Division Bench set aside only that part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which directions for regularization and other benefits were issued on the ground that such claims were not the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition, wherein, challenge was confined to the validity of the award at the instance of the employer bank, there being no separate claim of the workman claiming regularization or any other benefit. (Downloaded on 04/07/2022 at 09:57:31 PM)
(3 of 3) [SAW-354/2022] In our considered view, the order passed by the Division Bench in appeal earlier did not come in the way of the appellant in taking a separate remedy claiming regularization, pension and any other service benefit, if it was available to him under the law. The learned Single Judge has not gone into the merits of the issue on the ground that the relief has been denied by Division Bench.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the case is remitted to learned Single Judge for consideration on merits. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /83 (Downloaded on 04/07/2022 at 09:57:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)