Jai Singh vs The Managing Director, Rsrdc And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5613 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 172/2015

Jai Singh S/o Shri Hukma, Caste Gawariya, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Hamirpura Bodigama, District Banswara. (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited, Setu Bhawan, Opp. Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Limited (RSRDC), 52 Shiv Colony, Udaipur Road, Banswara, Dist. Banswara (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. P.R. Mehta
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vinay Jain



            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                     Order

18/04/2022

     Brief facts of the case are as under:

     The   petitioner     was     appointed         as     Chaukidar       with   the

respondent Department on 01.04.1986 and his services were

retrenched on 30.09.1987.

Against the said retrenchment, he preferred a claim petition

before the Labour Court and the same was allowed in his favour

vide award dated 07.09.1993.

Aggrieved against the said award, the respondent

Department preferred a writ petition before this Court which was

dismissed on 14.08.1998 and a special appeal against the same

was also dismissed.

(2 of 4) [CW-172/2015]

After the dismissal of the special appeal, the Department

reinstated the petitioner on 18.02.1999 and granted him

appointment on the post of Beldar. The petitioner then prayed for

regularization and when the request was not acceded to, he

preferred a writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No.2062/2001 which

was allowed on 27.05.2008. Vide the order dated 27.05.2008 it

was directed as under:

"The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Beldar or any other class IV post within a period of two months from the date of this order. No order as to costs."

When the said above mentioned orders were not complied

with, a contempt petition was preferred by the petitioner and

thereafter, office order dated 20.07.2011 was issued by the

Department vide which the appointment of the petitioner on the

post of Helper cum Messenger was regularized with effect from

28.05.2008.

Aggrieved against the office order dated 20.07.2011, the

present writ petition has been preferred on the ground that the

regularization of the services of the petitioner which have been

made with effect from 28.05.2008 is erroneous and the petitioner

ought to have been regularized with effect from the year 2001,

that is, the date of his filing the writ petition in the year 2001.

In support of his pleadings, counsel submitted that vide the

award dated 07.09.1993, the Labour Court had specifically

directed that the services of the petitioners were to be termed to

be continuous from the date of his initial appointment. Secondly,

many other similarly situated employees of the respondent

Department have been granted the notional benefits with effect

(3 of 4) [CW-172/2015]

from the date of their initial appointment and the non-grant of the

same to the petitioner is malafide on part of the Department.

Counsel therefore prayed that the petitioner also be granted the

notional benefits with effect from the year 2001 as granted to the

other similarly situated employees.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents raised the sole

ground that the judgment dated 27.05.2008 passed by this Court

directed for regularization of services of the petitioner and the

same did not direct for any specific date from which his services

were to be regularized. The Department has therefore, complied

with the judgment dated 27.05.2008 in its true spirit which cannot

be said to be erroneous.

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

It is clear on record that more than 10 similarly situated

employees, to name a few - Madan Lal Gurjar, Kailash Chandra

Sen, Rakesh Kumar, Dharm Pal Singh and Kalyani Devi, have been

granted the notional benefits with effect from the initial date of

appointment and the monetary benefits thereafter.

Counsel for the respondents is also not in a position to refute

the said submissions and the said orders being passed by the

respondent Department.

In view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of

Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]

also the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service.

Admittedly, the other similarly situated employees have been

granted notional benefits by the Department and therefore also,

the Department cannot make a distinction between any of its

employees.

(4 of 4) [CW-172/2015]

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition

is allowed.

The respondents are directed to grant the benefits to the

petitioner with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e.

01.04.1986. The petitioner would be entitled only for notional

benefits for the period from 01.04.1986 to the year 2001 (date of

filing of the writ petition). For the subsequent period, he would be

entitled to actual benefits.

(REKHA BORANA),J

10-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)