Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Maharana Pratap University Of ... vs Suresh Chandra Mehta ... on 19 August, 2023

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 354/2023

1. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology Udaipur, through its Registrar.

2. The Director, Directorate of Research, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology Udaipur.

----Appellants Versus Suresh Chandra Mehta S/o Ambalal Mehta, R/o 18, Subhash Marg, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellants                :    Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore
For Respondent                :    Mr. Mukesh Vyas



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

19/08/2023

1. This special appeal writ has been filed on behalf of the

appellant-University being aggrieved with the judgment dated

07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2920/2016 (Suresh Chandra Mehta Vs.

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.),

whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of

in the light of order dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned Single

Judge of this Court in Jagdish Prasad Vs. Maharana Pratap

University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3908/2014), which was upheld by

the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2022

passed in Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

Technology, Udaipur & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad (D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.588/2022).

2. Vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023, it was further

directed to the appellant-University to regularize the service of

the respondent from the date of his initial appointment i.e. July

1985 on the post of Photographer with all consequential benefits

within the period of three months.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially

engaged on daily wages at the rate of Rs.20/- per working day on

casual basis to work against the post of Photographer for a period

of one month, with the stipulation that he would not be paid for

more than 26 days in a month, vide order dated 15 th/17th July,

1985. The said engagement of the respondent as casual worker

against the post of Photograph was continued for every month till

14.07.1988 and thereafter he did not engage as casual worker

against the said post of Photographer. In the meantime, the daily

wages of the respondent were increased from Rs.20/- to Rs.30/-

vide order dated 10th/12th December, 1985 and thereafter vide

order dated 18th/22nd April, 1987, he was paid fixed emoluments

at the rate of Rs.780/- per month, which was to be charged from

the regular post of Photographer.

4. Later on, when the engagement of the respondent was

discontinued/terminated, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.2253/1988 (Suresh Chand Mehta Vs. Raj. Agricultural

University & Ors.) before this Court at Jaipur Bench, however, the

said writ petition came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order

dated 29.11.1994 because in the year 1991, he was again

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

re-engaged on 28.05.1991 on compassionate ground as casual

Photographer against the post of Photographer on fixed salary of

Rs.780/- per month.

5. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge of this Court

at Jaipur Bench while dismissing SBCWP No.2253/1988 (supra)

did not interfere with the discontinuation/termination order of the

respondent and observed that no cause of action survives in the

writ petition.

6. It is also to be noticed that after re-engagement of the

respondent by the appellant-University vide order dated

28.05.1991 on the fixed salary of Rs.780/- per month, he was

allowed the payment of fixed salary of Rs.1400/- per month

minimum of the pay scale of Photographer i.e.

1400-40-1800-50-2300-60-2360 vide order dated 21 st/23rd

October, 1991.

7. It is further noticed that later on vide order dated

21.11.2002, the appellant-University fixed the salary of the

respondent at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month minimum of the

pay scale of Photographer i.e. 5000-150-8000 with other

allowances w.e.f. 01.09.1996 consequent upon implementation of

Revised New Pay Scale, 1998.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent continued in the

service of appellant-University till he reached the age of

superannuation in the year 2016.

9. The respondent filed SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) with a

prayer that the appellant-University be directed to regularize his

services on the post of Photographer from the date of his initial

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

appointment i.e. July 1985 with all consequential benefits and to

make payment of salary in regular pay scale i.e. 640-1180

applicable to the post. The said claim of the respondent was

opposed by the appellant-University before the learned Single

Judge of this Court, however, the learned Single Judge, after

taking into consideration the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by

this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) and the order

dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and

Technology, Udaipur (supra), disposed of the said writ petition

vide impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 in terms of the order

dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish

Prasad (supra) with a direction to appellant-University to

regularize the services of the respondent from his initial

appointment i.e. July 1985 on the post of Photographer with all

consequential benefits within a period of three months.

10. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed

by the learned Single Judge of this Court, learned counsel for the

appellant-University has argued that the learned Single Judge has

grossly erred in allowing the prayer made by the respondent in

that writ petition as the respondent was neither appointed on the

post of Photographer nor faced selection at any point of time and

in such circumstances, even as per the resolution of Board of

Management of the appellant-University, his services are not liable

to be regularized.

11. It is also contended that the case of the respondent is

distinguishable from the case of Sudhansu Roy Bhatt Vs.

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology,

Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8358/2009)

decided on 05.07.2011, on which reliance was placed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the case of

Jagdish Prasad (supra).

12. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has further

argued that the respondent was initially engaged on daily wages

at fixed salary as causal worker in the year 1985 and his services

were discontinued/terminated on 14.07.1988 and being aggrieved

with the said discontinuation/termination, the respondent

preferred SBCWP No.2253/1988 (supra) before this Court at

Jaipur Bench, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed

on 29.11.1994 as infructuous and the respondent was re-engaged

in the year 1991, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court

has erred in issuing direction to regularize the services of the

respondent from July 1985. It is also submitted that in any case

when the dis-engagement/termination order of the respondent of

the year 1988 was not set aside or interfered by this Court, the

employment of the respondent can be deemed to be continued

from 1991 only when he was re-engaged and not from the period

prior to that.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant-University has, therefore,

prayed that the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by

learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.2920/2016

(supra) may kindly be set aside and the said writ petition filed by

the respondent may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has

vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant-University and

argued that the learned Single Judge of this Court has not

committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment dated

07.02.2023 and issuing direction to the appellant-University for

regularizing the services of the respondent from his initial

appointment i.e. July 1985 with all consequential benefits. It is

also submitted that the case of the respondent is squarely covered

by the decisions dated 22.03.2022, 05.07.2011 and 06.01.2014

rendered by this Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra), Sudhansu

Roy Bhatt (supra) and Dr. Vijay Pareek Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9889/2008)

respectively.

15. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

16. It is not in dispute that the respondent remained in service

of the appellant-University as Photographer for a long period. Even

if it is assumed that the disengagement/termination of the

respondent in the year 1988 was not interfered by this Court, the

respondent remained in service of the appellant-University as

Photographer since 1991 when he was re-engaged.

17. From perusal of the documents annexed by the respondent

along with writ petition SBCWP No.2920/2016 (supra) and the

rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-University, it

is clear that since 1991, the respondent was assigned duties at

various stations such as Sikar, Fatehpur, Bikaner, Banswara etc.

and he was also sent by the appellant-University for participating

in Training Programme, Video Programme and Production

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

Techniques. The respondent was also granted various kinds of

leaves by the appellant-University from the date of his

re-engagement. It is also very important to note that the

respondent was paid fixed wages/salary against the sanctioned

post of Photographer.

18. It is true that the respondent did not face the Job

Test/Interview, however, as per the resolution adopted by the

Board of Management of the appellant-University, which was also

relied by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), the

respondent is entitled for regularization as per Clause 2 of the said

Resolution.

19. Though the appellant-University has contended that it had

advertised the post of Photographer in the year 2004 but the

respondent did not apply for the said post and, therefore, even as

per the above Clause 2 of the Resolution, the services of the

respondent are not liable to be regularized. The said contention of

the appellant-University is bereft of any force because it is not a

case of the appellant-University that it had organized a Job

Test/Interview for the post of Photographer and the respondent

did not appear in the said Job Test/Interview.

20. The Division Bench of this Court in Maharana Pratap

University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur & Anr.

Vs. Sudhansu Roy Bhatt (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

Nos.909/2011 and 927/2011) decided on 26.07.2011 in

relation to the temporary/casual employee of the

appellant-University has held as under :-

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

"On the issue of regularisation of ad hoc employee, the issue stands resolved in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein following the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006), 4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Uma Devi" casts a duty upon the government and its instrumentalities concerned to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit of protection of any interim order of the court/tribunal. In para 11 of the Kesri judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also reiterated that the object behind directions in Uma Devi's case (supra) was to ensure that those who have put-in more than ten years continuous service without protection of any interim order of court or tribunal before the date of decision in Uma Devi's case, are entitled to be considered for regularisation in view of long service.

To our mind, these directions were apparently on very exceptional and strong equitable considerations, which also obtain in the present case. It is not in dispute that respondent had worked for more than ten years (about 32 years) without protection of any interim order or direction of any court or tribunal prior to Uma Devi's case. For this reason also, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is absolutely legal and liable to be sustained."

21. However, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge

while passing the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2023 has erred

in directing the appellant-University to regularize the services of

the respondent from July 1985 because the respondent, though

continued from 1985 to 1988 as casual worker against the post of

Photographer, but his services were disengaged/terminated from

the year 1988 and the challenge made by him to the said

disengagement/termination failed before this Court, therefore, he

[2023:RJ-JD:26367-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-354/2023]

cannot claim regularization from July 1985. It is an admitted

position that the respondent was re-engaged in the year 1991 and

continued to work on the same post from 28.05.1991 up to the