Rajasthan High Court
Raj Kumar Verma vs University Of Raj on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20841/2012
Raj Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jai Dev Verma, aged about 39 years,
Resident of Survey No.1574, Sanjay Nagar, DCM, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
University Of Raj, through its Registrar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish K. Singh
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
26/11/2021
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with a
prayer for regularization of the services from the date, the person
junior to him has been regularized.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed on
21.02.1992 as Class-IV employee with the respondent-University.
His services were extended from time to time and vide order
dated 03.04.1997, he was directed to be granted the revised rates
of daily wages w.e.f. 01.01.1995. The petitioner further stated
that vide letter dated 11.12.2000 of the Competent Authority, he
was even recommended for payment of regular selection grade.
But the petitioner was not granted the regular pay scale in spite of
the fact that persons junior to him to be specific, one Kusum
Sharma had been granted the regular pay scale vide order dated
12.03.2001. The petitioner has also placed on record an order
(2 of 4) [CW-20841/2012]
dated 30.06.2005 vide which several other persons, who stood on
the same footing as the petitioner were also regularized. With
these averments, the petitioner has prayed for regularization of
his services from the date of initial appointment.
3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
respondent-University and it has been averred that as the
petitioner is being paid wages under the Self Finance Scheme, his
services cannot be regularized. Further, it has been averred that
by virtue of Section 9 and 11 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of
Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff) Act,
1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1999'). The petitioner
was not entitled for regularization of his services.
4. Controverting the averments as raised by the counsel for the
respondent, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.
3271/2001: Bhawani Singh and 17 Ors. Vs. State and Ors.,
decided on 23.07.2002, whereby Sections 9 and 11 of the Act of
1999 have been declared to be ultra virus being violative of the
provisions of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:
"208. For the reasons aforesaid:
(i) Sections 9 & 11 read in light of Section 19 of the Act
of 1999 are declared ultra vires the Constitution being
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 read with Articles 39
41 and 42 of the Constitution.
(ii) The said provisions are otherwise inoperative for the
reason of their apparent repugnancy with I.D. Act 1947,
which is a law made by Parliament in respect of subject
matters enumerated in entries 22, 23 and 24 of
Concurrent List, and field is exhaustively occupied by
existing law and the State Legislation has not been
reserved for consideration of the President and has not
received his assent as required under Article 254(2) of
the Constitution
(3 of 4) [CW-20841/2012]
(iii) The following part of Clause (e) of Section 2(v) is
also declared ultra vires.
"a society registered under any law relating to the
registration of societies for the time being in force and
receiving funds from the State Government either fully
or partly for its maintenance, or any educational
institution whether registered or not but receiving aid
from the State Government."
(iv) As a consequence of declaration of Section 9 to be
ultra vires, any direction or order issued solely on the
basis of and with reference to Section 9 for non-
regularisation or consequential termination of services
cannot be sustained,
(v) Any order refusing claim to regularisation and
consequent termination as well as any claim to
regularisation can be made subject to remedial forums
for adjudication as may be available under law. Section
11 being held ultra vires such claims cannot be refused
to be adjudicated by the concerned forum by invoking
Section 11.
(vi) Likewise the claims to regularisation, which have
already been adjudicated and become final, there shall
be no impediment in execution and implementation of
such order, decree or award in accordance with law."
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
6. The position as laid down in the case of Bhawani Singh
and 17 Ors. (supra) cannot be and has not been controverted
by the counsel for the respondent. In that view of the matter, this
ground of the respondent does not survive, and therefore, the
same requires no consideration by this Court.
7. It has also not been controverted by the counsel for the
respondent that similarly situated persons namely; Kusum Sharma
and Suresh Kumar Verma have been regularized by the
respondent-University.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. {AIR 2006 SC
(4 of 4) [CW-20841/2012]
1806} and in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. {2018(8) SCC 238} and the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Sharma and other
connected Special Appeal (Writ) in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 347/2019, decided on 13.08.2021.
9. In Umadevi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:
"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic
interpretation and the Appellants, if they have
completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be
given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If
they have completed 10 years of service they should
be regularised unless there is some valid objection to
their regularisation like misconduct etc."
10. In the matter at hand, it is not disputed on record that the
petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 and continued in service
without any intervention of the Court. It is also not the case of the
respondent that the appointment of the petitioner was an irregular
or illegal appointment. It is also an admitted fact that similarly
situated persons have been regularized by the Department.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Umadevi
(supra) and in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur (supra), the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to
be allowed and the same is allowed.
11. The respondent-University is directed to regularize the
services of the petitioner from the date of completion of 10 years
of his service.
12. All consequential benefits thereof would also follow.
(REKHA BORANA),J
Pcg/87
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
