Madan Singh Rawat Son Of Late Shri ... vs Ajmer Central Co Operative Bank
2022 Latest Caselaw 4393 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 354/2022

                                      In

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22555/2018

Madan Singh Rawat Son Of Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About
58 Years, R/o New Basti, Madanpura, Post Rasulpura, District
Ajmer.
                                                                 ----Appellant

                                  Versus

Ajmer Central Co Operative Bank, Through Its Managing
Director, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
                                                               ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rachit Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment

01/07/2022

Heard.

With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

Challenge is made to order dated 23.11.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge, whereby, the appellant's claim for

regularization in service as also for pension after retirement has

been rejected.

Short and pin pointed submission of learned counsel for

the appellant is that the learned Single Judge, swayed by the

order of the Division Bench passed in earlier round of

(2 of 3) [SAW-354/2022]

proceedings, has not gone into the merits of the claim of the

regularization and pension, whereas, the order passed earlier by

the Division Bench on 22.03.2018 does not come in the way of

the appellant in filing a separate petition claiming regularization

and pension.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit

that the learned Single Judge appears to have rejected the claim

because the Division Bench earlier recorded a finding that the

Single Judge could not have traveled beyond the scope of award

to grant a relief which was not claimed by the present appellant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our

opinion, the appellant's claim for regularization and any other

claim including the claim of pension was required to be

considered on its own merits. The order passed in earlier round

of litigation related to validity of the award of the reinstatement,

which was challenged by the Bank before the High Court. The

learned Single Judge passed an order on 02.11.2017, not only

affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, but issued

additional directions for regularization etc. When the matter

traveled up to Division Bench in appeal, the Division Bench set

aside only that part of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge by which directions for regularization and other benefits

were issued on the ground that such claims were not the

subject matter of consideration in the writ petition, wherein,

challenge was confined to the validity of the award at the

instance of the employer bank, there being no separate claim of

the workman claiming regularization or any other benefit.

(3 of 3) [SAW-354/2022]

In our considered view, the order passed by the Division

Bench in appeal earlier did not come in the way of the appellant

in taking a separate remedy claiming regularization, pension

and any other service benefit, if it was available to him under

the law. The learned Single Judge has not gone into the merits

of the issue on the ground that the relief has been denied by

Division Bench.

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. Order passed

by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the case is remitted

to learned Single Judge for consideration on merits.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /83

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)