Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Fau Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35714) on 11 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:35714]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12857/2025

Fau Lal S/o Shri Choga Ram, aged about 58 Years, R/o Dhinawas
Road,     Village     -   Dhakri,        Tehsil     -   Sojat         City,   District   Pali
(Rajasthan).
                                                                              ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department
         oOf Medical and Health Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Department of Medical and Health, Jaipur.
3.       The Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO), Pali.
4.       The Block Chief Medical Officer (BCMO), Sojat City.
                                                                         ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Pankaj Choudhary
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Tanuj Jain for
                                     Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

11/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner's case is covered by the judgment passed by this Court

in the case of Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan;

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7603/2023 and other connected

matters. He further submits that the another person appointed in

the same appointment order, writ petition was disposed of in the

light of judgment passed in the case of Giriraj Prasad Sharma

(supra).The petitioner is also entitle for the same treatment. The

petitioner claims that he has completed 10 years of service by the

time of appointment date i.e. 08.07.2009. He also claimed that his

appointment was irregular and not illegal.

[2025:RJ-JD:35714] (2 of 5) [CW-12857/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the respondents unable to refute the

claim that the petitioner appointment is irregular and completed

more than 10 years of service by the cut off date.

3. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in the case

of Giriraj Prasad Sharma (supra) reads as follows: -

"16.1. When an employee is reinstated with continuity of service by a court of law, the legal fiction created is that the employee never left service. For, it would else result in a kind of double jeopardy,in as much as, despite being vindicated, the employee would suffer for the fault of his employer. On the other hand, the employee has already undergone the agony of the lis attributable to his employer. Therefore, denial of the benefits accruing to employees who were de jure continuously in service--on a mere technicality that they were not de facto present on a cut-off date--is both unjust and contrary to the spirit of Rule of law. To interpret otherwise would render the very principle of continuity of service hollow. It would allow the employer to indirectly nullify the effect of a judicial reinstatement by relying on the intervening absence that was caused by its own unlawful action. The de jure presence of the employee on the cut-off date must be recognized to ensure the remedial nature of the court's order is respected and the employee is restored to the status they would have held had the illegal termination not occurred. Not adopting this approach also is fraught with the dangerous consequence--where an employer, despite being faulted by the court, can still deny the employee the full range of benefits simply due to the passage of time or delays in litigation, many of which are outside the control of the employee. That would amount to punishing the employee twice over-- merely for asserting their legal rights.

19. Reverting to the Apex Court judgments referred above and in the light of foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that in present case, the following approach is required qua the persons whose initial appointments were though irregular but not illegal:-(A). Petitioners (excluding those whose services were hired on contractual basis for the limited period State Government Projects/Schemes and External Aided Projects), whose initial appointments though irregular but were not illegal(including those who were originally

[2025:RJ-JD:35714] (3 of 5) [CW-12857/2025]

engaged on ad-hoc and part-time terms and those to whom no formal appointment letters were issued) and had completed ten years' service before or on 08.7.2009 but not undercover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals ought to be regularized from their respective dates of completion often years' service;

(B). To the extent of requirement of vacancies, the respondents shall have to take necessary and appropriate measures. More of it in later part.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, binding precedents of the Supreme Court, and the settled legal principles and also to undo long-standing administrative injustice by exercising writ jurisdiction, following specific directions are deemed necessary, to be implemented in rem:-

I. Regularization of Eligible Petitioners

(i) The State Government, through its Chief Secretary, shall carry a fresh exercise (regardless of rejection of earlier claims of regularization) to identify all petitioners and all such other employees (excluding those whose services were hired purely on a contractual basis for time-bound projects/schemes or through placement agencies), whose initial appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who had completed ten years of continuous service on or before08.07.2009, without judicial intervention, and issue orders regularizing their services with effect from their respective dates of completing ten years' service.

(ii) Such regularization shall carry with it all consequential service benefits, including continuity of service for pensionary and promotional purposes, and shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the web-print of this judgment. II. Vacancies and Future Appointments

(iii) To the extent of available or necessary sanctioned vacancies, the Respondents shall initiate administrative processes to fill the same through regular recruitment, as mandated under the constitutional scheme.

(iv) While issuing recruitment notifications, the Respondents shall allow petitioners and similarly situated persons, whose initial appointments were either irregular or illegal, to:

          •    Compete in open selection;
          •    Waive the age restrictions;





 [2025:RJ-JD:35714]                   (4 of 5)                    [CW-12857/2025]


         •      Award weightage for past service as per Rule

20(2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022.

(v) Such recruitment notifications shall be issued within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment. III. Petitioners With Less Than 10 Years of Service

(vi) The Respondents shall identify all petitioners/other similar employees whose initial appointments were irregular but not illegal, and who had not completed 10 years of service as on 08.07.2009. Such persons shall be accorded benefit of service weightage and age relaxation on parity with those whose appointments were illegal but eligible under Uma Devi principles.

IV. Petitioners with Illegal Appointments

(vii) In respect of petitioners/other employees whose initial appointments were found to be illegal, the State shall:

Allow them to participate in regular recruitment processes;

Grant age relaxation and experience-based weightage as per Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring of Civil Posts Rules, 2022;

Issue individual speaking orders communicating their status and eligibility within four months. V. Constitution of Monitoring Committee

(viii) The Chief Secretary shall constitute a Monitoring Committee within 3 weeks of receipt of this judgment comprising:

• A retired High Court Judge after seeking prior consent (Chairperson), • Secretary, Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan to act as member secretary), • An independent labour law expert (member).

The Committee shall:

• Oversee compliance with this judgment; • Submit quarterly status reports to the Registrar Judicial of this Court to be placed before the learned Roster Judge for issuance further writ of continuous mandamus if warranted. VI. Transparency & Accountability

(ix) The State Government is directed to publish the compliance report and list of regularized employees on its official website of department of personnel within 30 days of issuance of final regularization orders, to ensure transparency.

VII. Summary of Directions

[2025:RJ-JD:35714] (5 of 5) [CW-12857/2025]

For better clarity and enforceability, a tabular summary of steps to be taken is as below:-

Direction Action Timeline Responsible Authority Regularization Identify eligible 6 months Chief Secretary from 10-year petitioners/emplyees completion date in the state Issue/publish Allow age relaxation & 6 months Department of recruitment weightage Personnel advertisement Compliance Website notice 1 month after Administrative publication regularization Dept Constitution of Oversight of execution 3 weeks Chief Secretary Monitoring Committee