SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 252

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Mukesh Sharma Etc. Etc. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2096-2198 of 2022
Decided on : 28-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Manish Singhvi, Arpit Prakash, Prashant Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Vineet Kothari, Nikhil Dungawat, Nihar Jain, Rajesh Kumar, Chitrangda Rastravara, Manvendra Singh, Dashrath Singh, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization – While directing for regularisation in service Court must strike a balance between all parties.

Headnote:

Service Law – Regularization – Respective original writ petitioners were appointed on different posts on different dates through placement agency – Since all of them had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested for regularizing their services in University but their services were not regularized – In order to see that there is no heavy financial burden upon University and at the same time to strike a balance and considering the fact that respective original writ petitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are restricted to three years prior to filing of writ petitions, while they are granted benefit of regularization notionally and with continuity of service from the date on which other similarly situated employees were regularized, it will meet ends of justice – Impugned common judgment and order passed by Division Bench of High Court and those of Single Judge hereby accordingly modified. (Paras 2, 4 and 5)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347 of 2019 and other allied writ appeals by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions by which Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions and directed appellant University to regularize their services with all consequential benefits, the employer University has preferred the present appeals.

Findings of Court:

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 continuity in service and benefits notionally on regularization, from the date on which the similarly situated employees were regularized.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347 of 2019 and other allied writ appeals by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions and directed the appellant University to regularize their services with all consequential benefits, the employer University has preferred the present appeals.

2. The respective original writ petitioners were appointed on different posts namely viz. Chowkidar/Peon, Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant, Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper, Rakshak, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator of the appellant- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the "J.N.V. University') on different dates through the placement agency. Since all of them had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested for regularizing their services in the University but their services were not regularized.

2.1 In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 and 26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the services of six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion like the respondents herein - petitioners in the University on contractual/daily wage basis. The said Sub-Committee recommended for regularization of their services. The said recommendation was confirmed in a Meeting of the Syndicate dated 28.03.1999. Once again, the respondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate of the University on 28.03.1999 whereby six similarly situated employees were confirmed and were also granted regular pay scale. However, the same was not agreed to by the University.

2.2 It is to be noted that the University Administration vide its Notification dated 27.10.2017 sought information in a prescribed proforma from different departments regarding persons rendering the services on contract basis, probably with a view to regularize their services. However, their services were not regularized and therefore separate writ appeals were filed before the High Court and the same were allowed by different Benches of the High Court directing the University to regularize the services of the respondents herein - original writ petitioners with all consequential benefits.

2.3 The judgments and orders passed by different Benches were the subject matter before the Division Bench. By the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench has also noted that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employees were allowed by the learned Single Judge Benches and the appeals preferred by the Universities were also dismissed by the Division bench and in some of the cases, even the special leave petitions filed by the University before this Court were also dismissed.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the University has preferred the present appeals.

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 the 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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top