Pratap Lal Bhoi vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5804 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5804 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pratap Lal Bhoi vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 21 April, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1389/2014

Pratap Lal Bhoi son of Shri Bhagwan Lal Bhoi aged 58 years working as Chowkidar in Government Pragya Chaksu Aandh School Hostel, Udaipur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education (Vidhi Prakostha) Department, Secretariat, Raj., Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, Secondary-I, Udaipur.

4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Udaipur

5. The Principal, Governmetn Pragya Chakshu Andh Vidhyalay Hostel, Amba Mata, Udaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Dr. Rakesh Sinha
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Bhawna Jangid



            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                      Order

21/04/2022

Vide order dated 06.02.2017, it had been observed by this

Court that earlier order 21.09.2006 has been complied with by the

Department, that is, the petitioner had been regularized in service

and also been granted arrears with effect from the date of his

regularization. On that date, after considering the said

compliance, this Court further observed as under:

"However, as noticed above, the grievance of the petitioner is that the date of regularization is totally unfair. In fact, he should have been regularized from the year 1983 or at the most from w.e.f. 25.01.2002, specially taking into account that the petitioner is only serving on

(2 of 5) [CW-1389/2014]

the personal consolidated pay of Rs.300/- from the last so may years and he is due to retire in September, 2017. The grievance of the petitioner is justified.

Accordingly, the matter be listed for hearing on the said part of the relief on 07.03.2017 at the top of the list. Meanwhile, by the next date of hearing, the amount of arrears in pursuance to the order of the regularization be positively disbursed to the petitioner."

In view of the above mentioned order, today the matter has

been heard finally only on the limited point pertaining to the date

of regularization of the petitioner. It is an admitted position on

record that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis in the

year 1983 at the Government Pragya Chakshu (Andh Vidhyalaya)

Hostel, Udaipur and at that relevant time there were three

persons working in the said Institute run by Social Welfare

Department. The said Institute was further taken over by the

Education Department in the year 1997 and all the three persons

remained in service in the said Institute.

The question of the regularization of the services of all the

three persons arose and the same was even recommended by the

Department itself to the higher authorities time and again. But

when the same was not averted to, two employees Uma Devi and

Ganga Ram preferred a writ petition before this Court and

ultimately after the positive orders been passed in their favour,

their services were regularized.

The present petitioner Pratap Lal Bhoi preferred writ petition

in the year 2014 with a prayer for regularization on the premise

that two similarly situated employees Uma Devi and Ganga Ram

(3 of 5) [CW-1389/2014]

have already been regularized by the Department and therefore,

his service too deserves to be regularized.

As taken note of above, during the pendency of the present

petition, the service of the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f.

03.03.2014. The case of the petitioner is that such regularization

ought to have been made from his initial date of appointment in

terms of the ratio laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka

vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that:

firstly, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on

the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner is claiming

regularization w.e.f. the date of initial appointment i.e. 01.07.1983

and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014 without any

reasonable cause of delay. Secondly, the services of Uma Devi

and Ganga Ram have been regularized w.e.f. the date of

institution of the suit/writ and the service of the petitioner has

also been regularized w.e.f. the date of his filing the writ petition

before this Court. Therefore, no discrimination has been made

between the petitioner and the similarly situated employees. It

has further been submitted that all the arrears w.e.f. 03.03.2014

qua the regularization have also been paid to the petitioner and

therefore, no cause survives to the petitioner now.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the present writ petition has been

filed in the year 2014 but it is also relevant to take note of the fact

that earlier in the year 1999 too, a writ petition was filed by the

petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3026/1999; Uma

Devi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan which was disposed of vide

(4 of 5) [CW-1389/2014]

order dated 27.07.2000 whereby the respondent authorities were

directed to consider the representation of the petitioners therein

and pass appropriate orders thereupon. It is also an admitted fact

on record that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on

15.09.2001 and the same was not challenged by him although the

same was challenged by Uma Devi. In the said challenge made by

Uma Devi, positive orders were passed in her favour and

ultimately her services were regularized w.e.f. the date of her

filing of the said writ petition.

In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma

Devi & Ors.; reported in (2006)4 SCC 1, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court as under:

"The upshot of above discussion is that though the directions issued by learned Single Judge for regularizing the petitioner notionally from the year 2004 cannot be sustained, nevertheless the Government cannot continue to engage the petitioner for decades to come and at the same time deprive him of the benefits of regular scales of pay and regularization. The petitioner shall be regularized in service upon completion of ten years from the date of his reinstatement on 20.04.2006. He shall be paid notionally for the past period and actual difference in salary shall be paid prospectively from the date of this judgment."

In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the petitioner

was a temporary employee appointed in the year 1983 and had

completed his 10 years of service in the year 1996 without

intervention of the Court. Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid

down in case of Uma Devi (supra), his services ought to have

(5 of 5) [CW-1389/2014]

been regularized. Looking into the fact that the present petition

has been filed in the year 2014 but keeping into consideration that

earlier writ petition was filed in the year 1999, it can be concluded

that the cause was taken up by the petitioner at that instance for

regularization of his services.

Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. The