State Of Rajasthan vs Sheikh Hamidulla S/O Shri ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7234 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1009/2021

1.       State     Of     Rajasthan,           Through         Principal     Secretary,
         Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.       Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Jhalrapatan,
         District Jhalawar
3.       Development          Officer,       Panchayat        Samiti,      Jhalrapatan,
         District Jhalawar
                                                                        ----Appellants
                                         Versus
Sheikh Hamidulla S/o Shri Ajijulla Khan, Aged About 56 Years,
R/o Mandwar, District Jhalawar Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.M. Jain

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment

06/12/2021

This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04/03/2021. The

record would show that the respondent-workman original

petitioner was engaged as a Handpump Mistry on daily wage basis

by the Panchayat Raj Department on 26/07/1984. He worked till

30/06/1989 after which, his services were terminated. He

challenged the termination before the labour court. The labour

court vide award dated 10/04/2002 held the termination illegal

setting aside the termination directing his reinstatement with

continuity with 25% backwages from 12/07/1996 i.e. the date on

which he raised the dispute. The award of the labour court dated

(2 of 2) [SAW-1009/2021]

10/04/2002 was challenged before the High Court; the High Court

confirmed the award except for payment of backwages. In other

words, the direction for reinstatement with continuity was upheld

and became final. On such basis the workman sought

rergularisation in service. The learned Single Judge proceeded on

the basis that the services were continuous and that large number

of similarly situated persons were regularised as per the

government scheme.

We do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed

any error. By virtue of his actual service and deemed continuity as

provided by the labour court and confirmed by the High Court, the

workman has been continuing in service since the year 1984. The

learned Single Judge recorded that the other similarly situated

employees were also regularised. In that view of the matter, in our

view, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka

Vs. Uma Devi : (2006) 4 SCC 1 would not alter the situation.

The appeal is dismissed.

                                    (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                                (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi-6









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)