Smt Shanti Devi vs State Agriculture Depors
2021 Latest Caselaw 574 Raj/2

                                             (1 of 5)                    [CW-7963/2015]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7963/2015

Smt. Shanti Devi, Wife Of Shri Narayan Mali, House No. 72,
Mount Road, Kagdiwada, Ramgarh Mod, Chhoti Pulia, Jaipur.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
        Government,           Agriculture          Department,          Government,
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Director, Agriculture, Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan,
        Jaipur.
3.      The   Principal,         Agriculture      Extension         Training   Center,
        Durgapura, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Ravi Chirania
                                   Mr. Shahrukh Panwar
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Udit Sharma for Mr. Rajesh
                                   Maharshi, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment

21/01/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing

No.5465/2005 which was decided on 27.04.2011 and the following

directions were issued:-

"I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submission of counsel for the parties.

In my view, it is a fit case for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner

(2 of 5) [CW-7963/2015]

under the newly added sub rule (4) to rule (10) of the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999, vide notification dated 27.2.2009, on account of petitioner's continuous period of service of more than nineteen years at the time of amendment dated 27.2.2009.

The writ petition is therefore allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Class IV under the newly added sub rule (4) to rule (6) of the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999, vide notification dated 27.2.2009, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

The said order was challenged by the respondents before the

Division Bench and the Division Bench passed the following order:

"That the respondent was initially appointed on 01.08.1989 as a Cook on daily wage basis by the appellants No.3 and that she was disengaged on 31.07.1990, whereafter, in compliance of the Award dated 22.10.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, she was reinstated in service, also on daily wage basis, is a matter of record. The operative portion of the award, being of formidable significance, is quoted herein below:-

^^vr% mijksDr foospu ,oa fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij jsQjsal dk vf/kfu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k Jherh 'kkafr nsoh dh lsok eqfDr fnukad 31-7-90 vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS mls lsok esa fu;ksftr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ;k lsok eqfDr ds le; og gh lsok ykHk izkIr djus dh

(3 of 5) [CW-7963/2015]

vf/kdkjh gS ysfdu ostst og fnukad 22-1-94 ls gh izkIr dj ldsxhA** It would be evident from the above quoted text that the termination of the services of the respondent was held to be illegal and a direction for reinstatement in service was ordered thereby. Further, though her continuity in service was maintained, she was ordered to be paid her wages therefor on and from 22.01.1994. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan And Others Vs. Hanuman Meena (supra), in an identical fact situation and noticing continuity in service of the respondent therein, as awarded by the learned Industrial Court invoked therein, had similarly directed consideration of his case for regularization in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Rules by construing his entire period of service from the date of appointment to the date of consideration to be reckonable for the purpose thereof. In the contextual facts and having regard to striking identicalness thereof with those as obtained in State of Rajasthan And Others Vs. Hanuman Meena(supra), we are inclined to take the same view. Noticeably, to reiterate, the leaned Single Judge had directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent, in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Rules. On an overall consideration of the above aspects, we, thus, are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order, impugned in the instant appeal. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed."

SLP was filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed

vide order dated 25.8.2014. A review petition No.3053/2014 was

filed and the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide

order dated 10.2.2015. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner has

(4 of 5) [CW-7963/2015]

been examined and the respondents have passed an order on

9.2.2015 and refused to regularize the petitioner on the said post

in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Class-IV

Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999

(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1999"). It is noticed that

the grounds taken for rejecting the petitioner's candidature for

considerations of regularization were the grounds which have been

taken by the respondents before the Supreme Court both in SLP

as well as in the review petition filed before the Supreme Court.

Once all the said contentions have been examined and

rejected by the Apex Court, there was no occasion for the

respondents to have still taken the same grounds for rejecting the

candidature of the petitioner for regularization.

Admittedly, the petitioner has been working on the post

since 31.07.1990 and her period of service has to be counted

continuously from 31.4.1990 in terms of the award passed by the

Labour Court dated 22.10.1990. It is also noticed that in similar

matters relating to Hanuman Meena, the respondents have

already regularized the services as noticed by the Division Bench.

The adamant and obstinate approach has been adopted by the

concerned while rejecting the regularization case of the petitioner.

The order dated 9.2.2015 goes also contrary to the view taken by

the Department itself in relation to other cases that of Hanuman

Meena as well as one other Om Prakash.

In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated

09.2.2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be

entitled for regularization in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the

Rules of 1999 and would be entitled to all consequential benefits,

continuity of service and arrears of salary from the date the

(5 of 5) [CW-7963/2015]

judgment was passed by this Court in his writ petition dated

20.04.2011. The actual benefits shall also be paid to the

petitioner.

A cost of Rs.1,00,000/- shall also be paid to the petitioner for

forcing her to this second round of litigation after the Supreme

Court had already dismissed the SLP and the review.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

SAURABH YADAV 670/80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)