Roopa vs Maharana Pratap University Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1322 Raj

[2023/RJJD/003790]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9414/2020

Roopa S/o Uda, Aged About 54 Years, Rebariyo Ka Guda, Dhikali Road, Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Comptroller, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.

3. Dean, College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Rathore

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/02/2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy in question rests decided by the judgment of this

Court passed in the case of Mahendra Singh Chundawat vs.

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7743/2009 (decided on

05.12.2022). He further submits that even in the case of Harish

Prajapat vs. Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and

Technology & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4549/2019

(decided on 18.09.2019) who was a similarly situated candidate,

the petition has been allowed in his favour.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the above said submissions.

[2023/RJJD/003790] (2 of 2) [CW-9414/2020]

In Mahendra Singh Chundawat's case (supra), it was held

as under:-

"In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had been working since 1987 with the respondent-University and has been granted regular pay scale vide order dated 06.06.1988 and similarly situated candidates have been regularized w.e.f. initial date of appointment, specifically Girdhar Gopal, who was appointed along with the petitioner on the same date, the petitioner deserves to be granted the same benefits.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondent- University is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1988, i.e. his initial date of regular appointment. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits arising out of the said order."

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is

also allowed on the similar terms in the case of Mahendra

Singh Chundawat (supra).

The stay petition and all pending applications also stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 68-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)