Rajendra Prasad Meena S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 970 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11375/2019

Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Shri Roop Chand, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of Village Nithar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur,
Presently Working And Posted As Chowkidar, Dr. B.r. Ambedkar
Government Hostel, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Though Its Secretary, Department Of
       Social     Justice       And    Empowerment,              Government    Of
       Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The      Director,       Department         Of     Social    Justice   And
       Empowerment,             Government           Of     Rajasthan,    G-3/1,
       Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur-
       302005.
3.     The Deputy Director, Department Of Social Justice And
       Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Gandhinagar,
       Jaipur.
4.     The Assistant Director, Department Of Social Justice And
       Empowerment,             Government           Of     Rajasthan,    G-3/1,
       Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur-
       302005.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nalin G. Narain, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

30/01/2021

Both the counsels are in agreement that the issue involved in

the present writ petition stands adjudicated finally by Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Lal Gujar Versus State

of Rajasthan: SBCWP No.6318/1999 decided on 30.11.2017

wherein the Court observed as under:-

(2 of 4) [CW-11375/2019]

"In the opinion of the Court, the issue of regularization of part time employees in Social Welfare Department has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mod Singh (SLP (C) No. 21173/1994) dt. 29th March, 1995. The State itself had prepared the scheme to regularize services of the part time employees and divided them into three groups:-

"1.First group was comprising of those who had completed5 years of services on 1995.

2.Second group was comprising of those who completed 2 years of services in May, 1995 and

3.Third group was comprising of those who have been working on 1st May, 1995 and have continued to work thereafter."

The Apex Court has further approved that these three categories of employees were intended to be regularized from 15thAugust, 1996, 1st April, 1997 and 1st April, 1998 respectively.

Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was appointed on 1st January, 1993 and as such his case was required to be considered in the second category and he was required to be regularized with effect from 1st April, 1997.

The petitioner has placed an order dt. 4th November, 2011,on record, where the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer, Jhalawar, had passed an order of regularizing services in all the three categories of employees but he refused to regularize services of the petitioner, only on the account that petitioner was appointed prior to 1st May, 1995 and his case of regularization was to be considered at the Head-quarters level.

The Court finds that respondents were under obligation to consider case of the petitioner for regularization, may be at the highest level and that they have not done so, thus claim of the petitioner has been defeated for no reason.

The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mohani Bai (supra) has taken note of the judgment passed by the Apex Court and directions were given to consider case for regularization in terms of the scheme as approved by the Apex Court in the case of Mod Singh (Supra).

As far as reliance on judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singa muthu (Supra), is concerned, the Apex Court considered order dt. 28th September, 2006 of the State Government, where only full time daily wagers were directed to be regularized on completion of 10 years of continuous service on 1st January, 2006 and while the other Government Order No. 74 dt.

(3 of 4) [CW-11375/2019]

27th June, 2013, clearly stated that part time employees were not entitled to be regularized and full time employees, who had completed 10 years of continuous service after 1st January, 2006, were also not entitled. The Apex Court held that Government Order No. 22 was not applicable to respondents in that case and the impugned order affirming the order of the Single Judge extending benefit of Government Order No. 22 and applying retrospectively from the date of completion of7 years service, was found to be unsustainable.

The Court also observed that impugned order cannot be sustained, since it was to adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner.

The judgment of the Apex Court as relied by counsel for the respondents, deals with a controversy where the person concerned was not entitled for regularization as per Government order, yet the High Court granted the benefit with retrospective effect.

The Apex Court in such background considered that persons have not put in requisite years of services, were not entitled for regularization with retrospective effect. The said case does not in any manner cover the present controversy and as such is of no help to the respondents.

The State Government itself had framed the scheme for regularization of part time Class-IV employees and got the approval from the Supreme Court and accordingly extended the benefit to all the three categories of Class-IV employees. The petitioner's case was required to be considered as per the scheme evolved by the State Government. The petitioner is not asking something, which is not permissible in law.

The State being a model employer was under obligation to carry out the exercise of regularization of service of part time employees, who are rendering their uninterrupted services.

In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner was entitled to be given benefit of regularization and also the regular pay scale after his proper regularization in service as per the dates which have already been prescribed and approved by the Apex Court.

Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularization and grant of regular pay scale from the date of which he becomes entitled as per the Scheme of the State Government."

(4 of 4) [CW-11375/2019]

Having considered the observations as above, this Court

finds that the petitioner had been initially appointed on

25.07.1986 on a consolidated wage as a Chowkidar with the

respondent/s department and his services were terminated on

4.5.1991 by a verbal order which was assailed by him before the

Labour Court. The award was passed by the Labour Court dated

6.3.2002 and the termination of the petitioner on 4.5.1991 was

held to be unjustified. The petitioner was granted continuity of

service from 25.7.1986 with 50% back wages. The writ petition

preferred by the Department was rejected by the High Court vide

order dated 20.12.2002 and the Special Appeal against the said

order before the Division Bench also failed.

The petitioner was reinstated and has been continuously

performing his duties with the respondent/s department and has

thus preferred this petitioner for seeking regularization.

Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Nand Lal

Gurjar (Supra), I am inclined to allow this writ petition with

directions to the respondents to conduct the exercise as directed

in Nand Lal Gurjar's case (supra) within a period of two months

and pass appropriate orders and grant all consequential benefits

to the petitioner treating his continuity of service from 1986. No

costs.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

NITIN /131

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)