Rajasthan High Court
The Assistant Engineer (O And M) ... vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Ram Sahai ... on 11 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 801/2021
The Assistant Engineer (O And M) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam
Ltd., Jaipur Discom, Niwai (Tonk)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal Sharma Son Of Ram Sahai Sharma, Aged
About 71 Years, Resident Of Village Chainpura, Tehsil
Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)
2. Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Chairman,
Vidyut Bhawan, Near Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Near Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Gaurav Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
11/11/2021
In this appeal filed by the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
which is successor company of the Rajasthan State Electricity
Board, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 26.03.2021.
Brief facts are that the respondent-workman was engaged as
a Work Charge Helper in the Electricity Board in the year 1974. His
services were terminated on 20.09.1976 which he challenged
before the Labour Court. Labour Court by award dated 01.05.1986
directed his reinstatement with continuity and back-wages. He was
(2 of 3) [SAW-801/2021]
reinstated on 18.01.1989, however it appears that such
appointment was treated as fresh. He was regularised in service
on 25.03.1997 and granted regular pay scale. He retired on
28.02.2011 after which he filed a petition and complained that his
regularisation was granted late. Learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment held that the workman should have been
regularised with effect from 03.04.1984 i.e after completion of 10
years of service on notional basis. However since there was
substantial delay in raising the claim, the learned Single Judge did
not grant benefit of actual arrears of salary for the past period.
However he granted two benefits, (i) that he will be treated
permanent from 03.04.1984 and (ii) his services will be counted
from the date he became entitle to semi-permanency i.e. two
years after initial induction, in short with effect from 03.04.1976.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, insofar as the principal
direction for granting permanency to the petitioner with effect
from 03.04.1984 is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere. It
is true that there was considerable delay on the part of the
petitioner in approaching the Court regarding the date of the
permanency granted by the Department on 25.03.1997. However,
while giving limited benefit to the petitioner, the learned Single
Judge has molded the relief by denying past benefits of arrears.
With respect to the direction for counting his service from
the date he became semi-permanent i.e. 03.04.1976, we cannot
countenance. Firstly, it is not clear that for what purpose his
services would be counted. If it is to be counted for the purpose of
pension, such direction is not supported by any document or
material on record. Secondly, in any case the petitioner cannot
(3 of 3) [SAW-801/2021]
claim benefit of service prior to his regularisation unless and until
the Government scheme or regulation so recognises.
Under these circumstances, while disposing of the appeal, it
is clarified that petitioner shall have the date of regularisation
from 03.04.1984, such regularisation would be for notional
purpose without benefit of arrears of pay till retirement. His
pension however will be reworked on the basis of this improved
date of regularisation and the benefit of arrears and pension
should be paid along with difference of gratuity, if any, as already
directed by the learned Single Judge. It is clarified that any
weightage of service prior to 03.04.1984 for the purpose of
pensionary benefit, would be available only if the Government
Rules and Regulations prevailing at the relevant time so recognise
any such benefit.
With these observations and directions, the appeal is
disposed of. These directions shall be carried out within a period of
four months from today.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Kamlesh Kumar/N.Gandhi/10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
