[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar Meghwal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9976]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4715/2026
Ram Kumar Meghwal S/o Shri Adu Ram Meghwal, Aged About 47
Years, Resident Of Near Chotina Kua, Bhinasar, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Social Justice And
Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Dy. Director, Department Of Social Justice And
Empowerment, Chopra, Katla Rani Bazaar, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
24/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
"xxxxx
i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents be directed to regularize the services of the
petitioner w.e.f.1.7.1997 in light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mod Singh.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the
respondents be directed to give remuneration to the
petitioner directly through the Department instead of
placement agency.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, in the
alternative and without prejudice to the above, the
respondents be directed to give minimum of the pay-scale
to the petitioner.
XXXXXX"
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner
was initially appointed on 01.10.1991 on the post of Cook-cum-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:20:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9976] (2 of 4) [CW-4715/2026]
Class IV against a vacant post. He continued in service up to
01.05.1993 and thereafter, by order dated 06.05.1993, his
engagement was extended up to 31.03.1994. However, with effect
from 01.04.1994, his services came to be terminated.
3.1. Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Bikaner. The learned
Labour Court, Bikaner, vide its judgment and award dated
29.10.2004, allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement
of the petitioner with continuity of service. In pursuance of the
said award, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated
19.06.2006 and he joined duties on 01.07.2006.
3.2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that once continuity of
service has been granted and his services are liable to be counted
from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 01.10.1991, he is entitled
to the consequential benefits. It has also been pleaded in the writ
petition that though the petitioner was appointed by the
respondent-Department and has been discharging duties with it
since 01.10.1991, his remuneration is being disbursed through a
placement agency and being aggrieved thereof, petitioner prefers
this writ petition.
4. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Cook-cum-Class IV
Employee against a vacant post and continued his services
thereafter and in the meantime, service of the petitioner was
terminated and by way of the award passed by the Labour Court
at Bikaner, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated
19.06.2006. He submits that since 2006, petitioner is working
regularly with the respondents, however, has not been regularized
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:20:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9976] (3 of 4) [CW-4715/2026]
till date. He submits that the controversy involved in the present
writ petition stands squarely covered by the order dated
23.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur, in SBCWP No.1030/2013 : "Parmeshwar Lal v.
The Director Social Justice and Empowerment Department
& Anr."; wherein, the Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petition,
quashed the impugned order and directed respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for regularization of the service. He,
thus, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the
respondents are directed to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner in light of the order dated
23.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of
Parmeshwar Lal (supra).
5. Thus, in view of the prayer so made by counsel for the
petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the
petitioner to file a detailed representation before the respondents
for ventilating his grievances within a period of '10 days' from
today. In case such representation is filed by the petitioner, the
respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a
period of 'four weeks' thereafter, by passing a speaking order,
strictly in accordance with law, while also keeping in mind the
order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the
case of Parmeshwar Lal (supra).
6. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the
representation of the petitioner has been issued only with a view
to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The
same may not be construed to be an order to decide the
representation in a particular manner.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:20:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9976] (4 of 4) [CW-4715/2026]
7. The order instant has been passed based on the submissions
made by counsel in the petition, the respondents would be at
liberty to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the
petition and only in case the averments made therein are found to
be correct/true, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief
prayed for.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all other
pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
322-/Devesh Thanvi/-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 06:20:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
