Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Manju Berwa ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:47603-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1281/2025
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Medical And
Health Officer, Medical And Health Department, District
Bhilwara.
2. The Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Manju Berwa W/o Shri Rajkumar Berwa, R/o Berwa
Mohalla, Gulmandi, District Bhilwara.
2. The Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N. S. Rajpurohit, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari with
Mr. Devan Maheshwari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Judgment
06/11/2025
1. The matter comes upon an application filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 420 days
in filing the special appeal is thus condoned.
3. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, and Mr. Saurabh
Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1, jointly submit that the appeal may be finally heard and
disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal has been heard
finally today itself.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:11:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47603-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1281/2025]
4. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State
assailing the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3809/2006 (The
State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.), whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant-State was disposed of, while
modifying the award dated 08.08.2005 passed by the learned
Labour Court, Bhilwara, only to the extent of back wages, and
directing extension of notional benefits to respondent No.1 as
indicated in the impugned order.
5. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that
respondent No.1 was engaged as a Multi-Purpose Worker (Female)
on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.3,500/- vide office order
dated 07.07.2000, under the administrative control of the
appellant-Department of Medical & Health, Bhilwara.
5.1. While she was serving in such capacity, an FIR No.302/2002
came to be registered on 31.05.2002 at Bhilwara for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, and 120-B
IPC, allegedly arising out of a family dispute. Pursuant thereto,
respondent No.1 was arrested on 18.07.2002, produced before
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara, and was
remanded to judicial custody. She was subsequently enlarged on
bail on 26.07.2002.
5.2. After her release on bail, on 27.07.2002, the respondent
No.1 reported for resumption of duty; however, permission to
resume was declined by the appellant-department. Subsequently,
her services were terminated w.e.f. 18.07.2002 vide order dated
17.10.2002, on the ground that she had remained in judicial
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:11:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47603-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1281/2025]
custody from 18.07.2002 to 25.07.2002 in connection with the
aforementioned criminal case.
5.3. Aggrieved by the termination, the respondent No.1 raised an
industrial dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court,
Bhilwara. During pendency of such proceedings, she was acquitted
of all charges by the competent criminal court vide judgment
dated 03.12.2011.
5.4. The Labour Court, vide award dated 08.08.2005, quashed
the termination order and directed reinstatement of the
respondent on the same contractual terms as existing prior to
termination.
5.5. The writ petition preferred by the State against the said
award was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 14.03.2024, upholding the findings of the Labour Court but
modifying the relief of back wages, while directing extension of
notional benefits to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-State
has preferred the present special appeal.
6. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, submits that the
termination order dated 17.10.2002 passed against respondent
No.1 was quashed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara vide
award dated 08.08.2005. He further submits that the writ petition
preferred by the State against the said award came to be disposed
of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.03.2024.
6.1. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the entire
factual matrix of the case revolves around the FIR registered
against the respondent, which had led to her termination, and that
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:11:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47603-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1281/2025]
she was subsequently acquitted by the competent criminal court
on 03.12.2011. He, however, urges that mere acquittal in a
criminal case does not automatically confer any right of
reinstatement or entitle an employee to service benefits, unless
the departmental termination is found to be perverse or
unsupported by law.
7. Per contra, Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, supports the impugned
order. He submits that both the Labour Court and the learned
Single Judge have rendered concurrent findings after detailed
consideration of the material on record and the principles of
natural justice. He argues that since the termination was based
solely on the pendency of a criminal case, and the respondent now
stands acquitted, the very basis of the termination no longer
survives.
7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
there is no other independent material on record to sustain the
termination order and that the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge and the Labour Court are strictly in accordance with
law, thus calling for no interference in the appellate jurisdiction.
8. Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual
matrix of the case, this Court finds no reason to take a view
different from that of the learned Labour Court and the learned
Single Judge. The very foundation of the termination order dated
17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against
respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a
competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the
basis of such termination ceased to exist.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:11:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47603-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1281/2025]
9. The concurrent findings recorded by both the forums below
are well reasoned, supported by the material on record, and suffer
from no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in
appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion
that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the special appeal stands dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
72-divya/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 03:11:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
