State And Ors vs Jagdish And Anr ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5144 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5144 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State And Ors vs Jagdish And Anr ... on 24 May, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/017054]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11405/2016

1. The State of Rajasthan through the Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Bani Park, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Court Campus, Jodhpur.

3. Deputy Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Jodhpur (City)

4. Assistant Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Jodhpur (Rural)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Jagdish s/o Sh. Mohan Lal Ji Rakhecha through President Rajasthan Trade Union Center (RCT) outside Sojati Gate, above Bata Godam, Jodhpur.

2. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal & Labour Court, Jodhpur.


                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. J. Gehlot



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

24/05/2023

I.A. No.02/2022:-

1. For the reasons stated, the application for early hearing of

the matter is allowed.

2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11405/2016:

1. Though the matter came up for consideration of application

under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, but having

[2023/RJJD/017054] (2 of 5) [CW-11405/2016]

regard to the controversy involved, the case was finally heard as

jointly prayed by rival counsel.

2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the judgment and award dated 20.04.2016 passed by

the learned Judge, Industrial Dispute Tribunal & Labour Court,

Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), whereby the

State has been directed to regularise respondent's services w.e.f.

the date of initial appointment i.e. 14.04.1991.

3. Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners

apprised the Court with the requisite facts and submitted that the

respondent-employee was appointed as a part-time/temporary

employee on 14.04.1991 and on 15.07.1992, he was orally told

not to come on duties.

4. Feeling aggrieved of such disengagement, the respondent

raised an industrial dispute which was answered in his favour by

order dated 28.02.2001 and his retrenchment was set aside and

the State was directed to pay 25% back wages.

5. The State preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3433/2001 against above award dated 28.02.2001,

which was dismissed by order dated 05.09.2001 and a Division

Bench Appeal being D.B. Special Appeal No.67/2002 too came to

be dismissed on 04.09.2002.

6. Thereafter, in compliance of the above orders, the State

reinstated the respondent-employee by way of order dated

07.10.2003.

7. Since, 07.10.2003, the respondent continued to work with

the petitioners, but he was not regularised for which he again

raised an Industrial Dispute claiming that he is entitled to be

[2023/RJJD/017054] (3 of 5) [CW-11405/2016]

regularised with effect from 14.04.2001 on completion of 10 years

of service from the date of initial appointment.

8. The appropriate Government referred the question to the

tribunal by notification dated 26.09.2012.

9. Learned member of the tribunal answered the reference and

held that the respondent-employee is entitled to be regularised

with effect from 14.04.2001.

10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel

argued that the tribunal firstly could not have straight away

passed an order of regularisation and even if any case was found,

a direction to consider his case for regularisation could be passed

that too on completion of 10 years from the date of reinstatement

i.e. on 07.10.2003 and not from the date of initial appointment

i.e. 14.04.1991.

11. In support of her aforesaid contention, learned counsel relied

upon Division Bench judgment dated 10.11.2021 rendered in the

case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Krishna Kumar Saini

(D.B. Special Appeal Writ no.603/2021), which held thus:

"The upshot of above discussion is that though the directions issued by learned Single Judge for regularising 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 regularisation. The petitioner shall be regularised 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.