Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Singh vs Jai Narain Vyas University ... on 6 November, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:38076]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11307/2023
Madan Singh S/o Sultan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Gali No.3,
Opposite Ram Mandir, Anna Sagar, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5638/2023
Achal Singh S/o Shri Bhom Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Porwalon Ka Baas, Pal Gaon, Pal, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6001/2023
Anand Gurjar S/o Shri Ummed Singh Gurjar, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 33, Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Bhagat Ki
Kothi, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6642/2023
Navneet Thanvi S/o Shri Lalit Thanvi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Plot No. 88-89, Sindhi Colony, Near Medical College, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (2 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6646/2023
Rajendra Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, 242,
Bahrali Gali, Village Peeparli, District Jodhpur Rajasthan.
Presently Residing At Ii/10, Sector No.03, Jnvu Staff Quarters,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7835/2023
Abid Ali S/o Shri Mohammad Anwar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Plot No. 3, Sakina Colony, Behind Geeta Bhawan, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7939/2023
Navneet Vyas S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Vyas, Aged About 40
Years, R/o - Lodhon Ki Gali, Near Madan Manzil, Veer Mohalla,
Johdpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (3 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8004/2023
Chhog Singh S/o Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Rawala Kot, Jhalamand, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8086/2023
Bhanu Priya D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Suthar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Plot No. 86, Tirupati Nagar, Nandari Gaon, Johdpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8095/2023
Sagar Singh Naruka S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Plot No. 114, Janta Colony, Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9289/2023
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Sang Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
House No. 9 Navdurga Nagar Jhalamand, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (4 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9447/2023
Dheeraj Bhati S/o Shri Ashok Bhati, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
House No. 42, Ghanchi Colony, Gali No. 2, Bhagat Ki Kothi,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9621/2023
Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Aman Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Dewasiyon Ki Dhani, Jhalamand Village, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11619/2023
Shila W/o Gordhan, D/o Prahalad Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
By Caste Harijan, Resident Of 21, Sanjay Colony, Pratap Nagar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (5 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
2. The Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Kamla Nehru
College For Women, Jodhpur,
Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12408/2023
1. Jitendra Singh Panwar S/o Shri
Mohan Singh Panwar, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o- Near
Kuchaman Haweli Kuaa, Merti
Gate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Mega Ram Sen S/o Poona Ram
Sen, Aged About 33 Years, R/o-
Village Khindakor, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhopur, Through Its
Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14283/2023
Sheela W/o Satya Prakash Boyat, D/o Charandas, Aged About 41
Years, By Caste Harijan, Resident Of 28, Keshar Bagh, Harijan
Basti, Ratanada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narayan Vyas University
Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. The Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Institute Of
Evening Studies, Old Campus,
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (6 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7125/2018
Virendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Hansraj Ji, By Caste Kumhar
Resident Of Behind Nanak Store, Sardarpura "b" Road,
Jodhpur,- Presently Working As Lab Attendant In The Faculty Of
Computer Science And Engineering Department, Jai Narayan
Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar.
2. Registrar, Jai Narayan Vyas Uinversity, Jodhpur, Head
Office, Residency Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Jain.
Mr. Mohit Choudhary.
Mr. Govind Suthar.
Mr. SKM Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mansavi Choudhary.
Mr. Deepesh Beniwal.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/11/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
issue involved in the present writ petitions is no more res-integra,
as the same has been covered by the order passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Lalit Gehlot & Ors. Vs.
The Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5666/2022) decided on 26.4.2023 along with other
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (7 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
connected matters. The operative portion of the said order reads
as under:-
"I have considered the submissions made at the Bar
and have gone through the relevant record of the case
including the pleadings made herein.
The undisputed facts in the present case are that
the petitioners were appointed on different position
through different modes i.e. casual basis, through
placement agency, daily wage basis, etc., by
respondent-University from time to time and they have
been performing the regular nature of work without any
break till date. In none of the cases of the petitioners,
the engagement has been discontinued by the University
till date. This Court is prima facie of the view that
sufficient amount of work is available with the
respondent-University which is being performed by the
petitioners and, therefore, it can be termed that the
petitioners are working on the posts which are having
perennial nature of work. Thus, it can safely be presumed
that the petitioners are working at par with the persons
who have been regularly appointed by the University.
It is also worth noticing here that the Registrar of
the University has communicated to the State
Government vide letters dated 17.05.2022 & 03.06.2022
mentioning therein that the petitioners are similarly
situated to the persons in whose favour the writ petitions
have been allowed on the earlier occasions and the
matter has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
This Court has also taken note of the fact that the
cases of the petitioners are not distinguishable from the
cases in which this Court has recently passed judgments
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10389/2018 (Bheru
Singh V/s Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur &
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (8 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
Anr.) on 23.05.2022 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2726/2019 (Suresh V/s Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur & Anr.) and other connected
matters on 29.03.2022, the writ petitions were disposed
of in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents
stating that the controversy involved in the present case
is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Sharma (Supra).
On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the
learned counsel for the respondents with respect to any
difference between the set of employees who have
approached this Court by way of filing the present writ
petitions and the cases of those employees in whose
favour the writ petitions were allowed by this Court on
earlier occasions, the learned counsel for the
respondents fairly submits that there is no
distinction between the set of employees in whose
favour the matter has attained finality upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present petitioners.
This Court, thus, has no hesitation to hold that the
petitioners are entitled to the same relief which has been
granted to the similarly situated employees of the
University. Moreso, when the matter has been examined
thoroughly, and the contentions which are sought to be
raised by the learned counsel for the respondents have
already been taken note in the earlier decisions,
therefore, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to
pass a different order other than the order which has
been passed on the earlier occasions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the
bunch of Special Leave Petitions arising out of an order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in identical
situation in the case of Jai Narain Vyas University,
Jodhpur & Anr. V/s Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc.,
reported in (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842 has held as under:-
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (9 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
"3. By order dated 07.02.2022, this Court issued a
limited notice to restrict the benefits accruing from
the regularization to three years prior to filing of th
writ appeals. The order dated 07.02.2022 reads as
under:-
We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner-
University at length.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has directed to regularize the services of the
respondents with all consequential benefits. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, we see no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court granting
regularization, more particularly, the concerned
employees have been continued in service, may be
on contractual basis, for more than 15-30 years of
service. The question of law, if any, is kept open.
Now, so far as the giving consequential
benefits on regularization, we issue limited notice to
the respondents, returnable on 14.03.2022 and to
show cause why the benefit accruing from the
regularization may not be restricted to the three
years prior to filing of the wirt petitions.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted."
4. We have heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf otf the
appellant University and Dr. Vineet Kothari and Ms.
Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respective respondents - original
writ petitioners. These writ petitions were filed in the
year 2018/2019. In order to see that there is no
hearvy financial burden upon the University and at
the same time to strike a balance and considering
the fact that the respective original writ petitioners
have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is
ordered that the actual consequential benefits on
regularization of their services are restricted to three
years prior to filing of the writ petitions, while they
are granted the benefit of regularization notionally
and with continuity of the service from the date on
which the other similarly situated employees were
regularized, it will meet the ends of justice.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned common judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and
those of the learned Single Judge are hereby
modified and it is ordered that the original writ
petitioners shall be entitled to the actual
consequential benefits on regularization for the
period prior to three years of filing of the writ
petitions only. However, they shall be entitled to
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (10 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
continuity in service and benefits notionally on
regularization, from the date on which the similarly
situated employees were regularized.
All these appeals are partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs."
The argument of the learned counsel for the
respondents to take a different view in these cases on
the strength of the judgment relied upon by him in the
case of Official Liquidator (supra) is noted to be
rejected on the ground that there is no distinction
between the two sets of employees in whose favour the
judgments have been passed and affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Since in earlier decisions passed by this
Court, the judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) has been taken note
of and those decisions were assailed by way of filing
Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the same have been decided by a detailed judgment
in the case of Mukesh Sharma (supra), therefore, the
argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that
later decisions were per incuriam is not sustainable.
This Court is also of the view that since the similarly
situated persons have already been extended the benefit
of regularization, the University should have taken up the
cases of the respondents- petitioners on its own and as a
model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a
Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated
and working in the organization should not be dragged in
the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as
the employer is under an obligation to extend the same
benefit to those persons who have not even approached
the Court of law. The view taken by this Court in the
preceding para is fortified by the observations of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in somewhat similar case titled as
Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University vs.
[2023:RJ-JD:38076] (11 of 11) [CW-11307/2023]
Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela & Ors. reported in AIR 2021
SC 3529 has also held as under:-
"13. By an order dated 17.10.2011, persons similarly
situated to the Respondents were absorbed by being
given the benefit of regularization. The Division
Bench of the High Court has taken note of the
discriminatory approach of the university in
conferring the benefit of regularization to some and
not to all those daily wagers who are eligible. There
is no error in the judgment of the High Court which
warrants interference by this Court. Eligible daily
wagers in accordance with the scheme have been
eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment
of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University's case
(supra). The right of the Respondents for
regularization has been correctly recognized by the
High Court."
The other arguments of the learned counsel for the
respondents have elaborately been taken note of in
earlier judgments and those judgments have been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no
different view is possible in the facts and circumstances
of the present cases.
In view of the discussions made herein above, the
present writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are
directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the
petitioners, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur & Anr. V/s Mukesh Sharma Etc.
Etc. reported in (2022) 1 S.C.R. 842 (supra). It is also
directed that all this exercise be completed within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
Stay applications as well as other pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to cost."
2. In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petitions
are also allowed in the same terms. All pending applications also
stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
14-29-C-1-Jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
