The Managing Director vs Prakash Chandra Joshi
2023 Latest Caselaw 41 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 682/2022

1.      The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Development
        And Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan, Opp. Jhalana
        Doongari, Jaipur Agra Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.      The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And
        Construction Ltd. (Rsrdc), 52 Shiv Colony, Udaipur Road,
        Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)             ----Appellants
                                     Versus
Prakash Chandra Joshi S/o Late Shri Nandlal Joshi, Resident Of House
No. 34, Shiv Colony, Udaipur Road, Chamatkari Bal Hanuman Mandir
Ki Gali, Banswara (Raj.)                             ----Respondent


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



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                JUDGMENT

03/01/2023

The instant intra court appeal is time barred by 12 days. For

the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of

Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay is condoned.

The instant intra court appeal is preferred against order

dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this

Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.606/2015 whereby the writ

petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was allowed

directing the appellants-respondents to regularise his services

w.e.f. the date of initial appointment i.e. 07.11.1983.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent

entered the services of appellant-department w.e.f. 07.11.1983 on

being appointed on the post of Office Boy. The services of the

respondent were terminated w.e.f. 01.06.1988 without following

(2 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent. On

failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred for

adjudication to the Labour Court, Udaipur by the State

Government. The Labour Court, Udaipur vide award dated

07.09.1993 held that the retrenchment of the respondent from

services was without compliance of mandatory provisions of 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the Labour Court,

Udaipur ordered for reinstatement of respondent with continuity of

the service for the period he remained out of employment.

The appellant-department being aggrieved by the award

dated 07.09.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur preferred

writ petition (S.B. C.W.P. No.5499/1993) before this Court.

Learned Single Bench vide order dated 11.08.1998 dismissed the

aforesaid writ petition assailing the validity of award dated

07.09.1993. The special appeal being D.B. S.A.W. No.11/1999

filed by the appellant-department directed against the order dated

11.08.1998 of learned Single Bench came to be dismissed by co-

ordinate Bench vide order dated 10.08.1998.

The appellant-department thereafter in compliance of the

award dated 07.09.1993 reinstated the respondent in service vide

order dated 10.04.2000 against the post of Beldar on daily wage

basis.

The respondent-writ petitioner after reinstatement in service

filed a writ petition being S.B. C.W.P. No.2063/2001 stating inter

alia that even after lapse of 24 years in services, he has continued

as daily wager which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India therefore, a direction be issued for

regularisation of his services on the post of Beldar. The learned

(3 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

Single Bench vide its order dated 27.05.2008 allowed the writ

petition and directed appellants-respondents to consider the

respondent-writ petitioner for regularisation of his services on the

post of Beldar or any other Class-IV post.

In compliance of the directions issued by learned Single

Bench in S.B. C.W.P. No.2063/2001, by an office order dated

20.07.2011 issued by General Manger of the appellant-

department, the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as

Helper-cum-Messenger in the pay scale of PB-4750-7440 (Grade

Pay- 1300) w.e.f. 28.05.2008.

After issuance of office order dated 20.07.2011, the

respondent-writ petitioner submitted numerous representations

stating therein that his services ought to have been regularised

from the year 2001 as the Labour Court, Udaipur in its award

dated 07.09.1993 had directed to treat him in continuous service

while declaring his retrenchment from services w.e.f. 01.06.1988

to be violative of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In the representations submitted by the respondent-writ

petitioner, it was categorically stated that a number of similarly

situated employees had been regularised in service from the date

of initial appointment and granted notional benefits as well.

However, the grievances ventilated by the respondent-writ

petitioner in his representations remained unheard.

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, respondent-

writ petitioner preferred S.B. C.W.P. No.606/2015 before learned

Single Bench with the prayer that the services rendered by him in

the appellant-department may be ordered to be regularised from

the date of initial appointment i.e. 07.11.1983.

(4 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

Learned Single Bench vide order dated 19.04.2022 was

pleased to allow the writ petition directing the appellant-

department to regularise services of the respondent-writ petitioner

in the department from the date of initial appointment i.e.

07.11.1983. However, respondent-writ petitioner was held entitled

to actual benefits from the year 2001 (date of filing of writ

petition). The service benefits from 07.11.1983 to the year 2001

were ordered to be granted notionally. The appellant-department

being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the

learned Single Bench has filed present special appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently and fervently

submitted that the services of the respondent-writ petitioner were

regularised in the department w.e.f. 28.05.2008 through office

order dated 20.07.2011 issued by General Manager therefore, the

writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner claiming the

same relief of regularisation ought not to have been entertained

by the learned Single Bench. Thus, the learned Single Bench

exceeded the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of Constitution

of India while granting relief to the respondent-writ petitioner.

Learned counsel further submitted that the employees with whom

parity in the matter of regularisation was claimed by the

respondent-writ petitioner were working in a different unit at

different points of time in the appellant-department. Hence,

benefit of regularisation from the date of initial appointment ought

not to have been granted by the learned Single Bench. It was thus

urged that the order dated 19.04.2022 may be reversed and the

instant special appeal be allowed.

(5 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner

supported the order dated 19.04.20022 passed by the learned

Single Bench and submitted that a well reasoned order passed by

learned Single Bench deserves to be upheld.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Admittedly, the Labour Court, Udaipur vide award dated

07.09.1993 held that the retrenchment of the respondent from

services w.e.f. 01.06.1988 was without compliance of mandatory

provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Accordingly, the respondent-writ petitioner was ordered to be

reinstated with continuity of service. In the year 2001, the

respondent-writ petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before

learned Single Bench of this Court prayed for regularisation of his

services which came to be disposed of vide order dated

27.08.2008 with a direction upon the appellants to consider

respondent-writ petitioner for regularisation of his services on the

post of Beldar or any other Class-IV post. In compliance of the

order dated 27.08.2008 of learned Single Bench, the appellant-

department vide office order dated 20.07.2011 regularised the

services of the respondent on the post of Helper-cum-Messenger

w.e.f. 28.05.2008. It is not in dispute that a number of similarly

situated employees working with the appellant-department under

various court orders were regularised on the post of Helper-cum-

Messenger from the date of initial appointment.

We are not impressed by the submissions made by learned

counsel for the appellant-department that once services of the

respondent were regularised on the post of Helper-cum-Messenger

(6 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

vide office order dated 20.07.2011 pursuant to the orders passed

by learned Single Bench in S.B. C.W.P. No.2063/2001, the second

writ petition seeking regularisation of services from the date of

initial appointment ought not to have been entertained. It is

settled law that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in the interest of justice can issue appropriate orders and

directions to grant appropriate relief to a litigant having regard to

the facts and circumstances of the case. The anxiety of the court

would be that legitimate relief is not denied to a litigant. Even

otherwise, in the present case, the respondent-writ petitioner was

well within his rights to claim regularisation from the date of initial

appointment being dissatisfied with the office order dated

20.07.2011 whereby his services were regularised from

28.05.2008 instead of initial date of appointment.

In our considered opinion, the appellant-department is a

Government of Rajasthan Undertaking which oversees various

construction activities of the Government and private entities. The

post on which the respondent had been working is perennial in

nature and therefore, the uninterrupted services rendered by the

respondent-writ petitioner in the appellant-department prior to

28.05.2008 cannot be allowed to be washed away at the whims

and fancies of the authorities of the appellant-department

particularly when appellant-department has not been able to

refute the fact that a number of similarly situated employees had

been regularised in service from the date of initial appointment.

We are constrained to observe that present special appeal is

nothing but an abuse of the process of law where the mighty

(7 of 7) [SAW-682/2022]

employer by using its undue authority has dragged a poor Class-

IV employee into litigation.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court while deprecating the tendency

to file avoidable litigation in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara vs.

Union of India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470 observed as

under:

"The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part."

In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in the

present special appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs

quantified at ₹50,000/-. Cost upon being realised be appropriated

in the funds of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

All pending applications are also dismissed.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                      (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    17-KshamaD/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)