RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Gopal Sharan Gupta (Dr.) Vs. University of Raj. & Anr. (Rafiq, J.)
HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Gopal Sharan Gupta (Dr.)
Versus
University of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4107 of 2011, decided on 03.03.2014
Writ petition allowed.
jktLFkku fo'ofo|ky; f'k{kd ¼rnFkZ f'k{kdksa dk vkesyu½ v/;kns'k & lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk fu;eu & fjlpZ ,flLVsUV ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k & mlds 5 o"kZ ckn fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks ;g ifjykHk iznku fd;k ysfdu izkFkhZ dks bl vk/kkj ij badkj fd;k fd ;g in xSj 'kSf{kd Fkk & 17 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dh & loksZPp U;k;ky; rd yM+kbZ thrh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fjlpZ ,flLVsUV dk in foKkiu esa Li"V :i ls lfEefyr Fkk vkSj fo'ofo|ky; esa Hkh fo|eku Fkk & mlds ikl lHkh okafNr ;ksX;rk,a Fkh & fjlpZ ,lksfl;sV }kjk fd;k tkus okyk dk;Z fjlpZ ,flLVsUV }kjk fd;s tkus okys dk;Z ls dqy feykdj leku Fkk & brus nh?kZ dky rd 9300@& :- ekfld dh lesafdr ru[ok ij mlls dk;Z djok dj izkFkhZ dk 'kks"k.k djus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrh & mldh lsok,a fu;fer djus ds funsZ'k fn;sA ¼in la[;k 8 ls 13½ fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
2. Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that petitioner was appointed in the service of the University of Rajasthan, after regular selection was held, by order dated 26.04.1991. He filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3800/1996 seeking mandamus to respondents to grant him regular pay scale with regularization. His services, however, were terminated during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, on 31.03.1997. Petitioner got aforesaid writ petition amended thereby challenging the order of his termination. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 12.05.2000 allowed the writ petition and set aside order of termination directing respondent University to reinstate him in service with continuity. Respondent University filed Special Appeal (Writ) No.733/2000, before the Division Bench challenging aforesaid judgment of Single Bench, which was disposed of by judgment dated 24.03.2009 directing that petitioner be reinstated in service without back wages and further that in the meantime if salary of Research Assistant in the University of Rajasthan is increased on consolidated basis or otherwise, petitioner shall be entitled for same salary. It was also directed that for other purposes including for the purpose of regularization, the intervening period of service should be counted. Respondent University of Rajasthan challenged aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court before the Supreme Court by filing Special leave to Appeal (Civil) No.19500/2009, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 17.08.2009. Respondent had to thereafter reinstate petitioner in service. Petitioner submitted representation on 20.04.2009 requesting respondents to grant him pay scale at par with one Shri S.S. Ranawat, Research Associate, who has been given pay scale of Rs.700-1600 of Research Assistant, vide order dated 07.07.1994. Respondent University by notification dated 16.06.2008, absobed the ad-hoc teachers working with them and subsequently appointed them by order dated 05.04.2008 from the date of their initial appointment. Vide order dated 21.07.2009 pursuant to Syndicate Resolution No.56, eight Research Associates were re-designated as Assistant Professor. When Division Bench judgment of this court dated 24.03.1999 was not complied with by respondents, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.967/2009 and it was only thereafter that petitioner was offered appointment and was reinstated on the post of Research Assistant on consolidated salary of Rs.9300/- per month. Contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2010.
3. Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that reinstatement of petitioner was made vide order dated 20.12.2010 as Research Assistant in the Centre for Rajasthan Studies but complete benefits in terms of Division Bench judgment of this court were not extended to petitioner. Petitioner submitted representation to respondents on 28.02.2011 and thereafter served legal notice for demand of justice on 07.03.2011. When his grievances were not remedied, petitioner had to file present writ petition. Learned counsel has referred to order dated 19.08.2008 and argued that while petitioner has been working with respondent University si
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.