Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Nand Koyra Bairwa vs Assistant Engineer, Irrigation ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 289 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Nand Koyra Bairwa vs Assistant Engineer, Irrigation ... on 16 January, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Shubha Mehta

   [2024:RJ-JP:2471-DB]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 687/2023
                                             In
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9568/2019
    Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Nand Koyra Bairwa, Aged About 54
    Years, R/o Village Mangrol, Post Godra, Tehsil Sapotara, District
    Karauli, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
    1.      Assistant     Engineer,        Irrigation        Sub-Division     Karauli,
            Presently Irrigation Morel, Sub-Division Malarana Chod,
            Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
    2.      Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Karauli.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Prateek Singh Advocate.

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment

16/01/2024

1. Heard.

2. The order passed by the leaned Single Judge is assailed in

this appeal mainly on the ground that many persons who were

appointed after the appeal and were terminated, were later on

reengaged. Neither in the pleadings, nor in the evidence, it has

come that those persons who are said to be again re-appointed

later on were continued and regularised in service.

3. The appellant worked for about two years and five months.

At the instance of the appellant, reference was made after about

[2024:RJ-JP:2471-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-687/2023]

seventeen years. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects,

the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge both have

negated the claim of reinstatement relying upon various decisions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have awarded compensation of

Rupees Two Lacs in lieu of reinstatement. We further find that

taking into consideration the period during which the appellant

work, compensation of Rupees Two Lacs appears to be just and

proportionate.

4. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off.

6. However, the respondents shall ensure the balance payment,

if not already paid, to be paid to the appellant at the earliest,

failing which the interest, as directed by the learned Single Judge

shall have to be paid to the appellant.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

SANJAY KUMAWAT-4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)