2018 Supreme(Raj) 1024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Khama Ram Vishnoi - Appellant
Versus
Jai Narayan Vyas University - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 832 of 2015, 1316 of 2015, 1317 of 2015
Decided On : 08-10-2018

REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - CONDITIONS - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - IRREGULAR APPOINTMENT - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - EXCEPTION - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - TEN YEARS OF SERVICE - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Headnote:

REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - SANCTIONED POST - ABSENCE OF - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - CONDITIONS - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - IRREGULAR APPOINTMENT - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - EXCEPTION - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - TEN YEARS OF SERVICE - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - SANCTIONED POST - ABSENCE OF - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - CONDITIONS - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - IRREGULAR APPOINTMENT - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - EXCEPTION - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - TEN YEARS OF SERVICE - REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were appointed by a regular process of selection on the post of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant-cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta). The petitioners were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement of the year 2015 on different dates i.e. vide orders dated 11.01.1995 (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), dated 04.08.1990 (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) and dated 18.11.1991 (petitioner-Narendra Surana). The MBM Engineering College, Jodhpur, after approval being taken from the University, sent a proposal to the Department of Science to establish the Entrepreneurship Development Cell (EDC) in the MBM Engineering College. After the said proposal having been sanctioned, the advertisement was issued to recruit the incumbents, like the present petitioners, and these were the sanctioned posts to run the project and formed part and parcel of the Core Staff, which is requisite for each Entrepreneurship Development Cell in the beginning. The petitioners were being paid the fixed salary and thereafter representations were made to the Registrar of the University in the year 2003, after almost eight years of their appointment, that they should be regularized and should be conferred the regular pay scales. Thereafter, the Syndicate passed a Resolution on 24.11.2004 for constituting a committee for regularization of the work-charge employees, including the employees of the Entrepreneurship Development Cell. Thereafter, the resolution was passed vide Annexure-10 dated 06.10.2005 to regularize the services of the work-charge employees working in the Building Cell of the University, which was Agenda Item No.21, Resolution No.55/2005 dated 06.10.2005. The Syndicate also corrected the resolution by incorporating the word "EDC" after the word "Building Cell", both in the consideration as well as the resolution. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor called upon the Entrepreneurship Development Cell to send the details of the employees working in the said Cell for the purpose of their regularization, whereupon the necessary details were sent by the Entrepreneurship Development Cell on 23.05.2007. However, the decision was not taken and representations were made regularly by the petitioners for granting them regular pay scale, while regularizing their services. In these circumstances, apprehending termination of services, one of the petitioners, namely, Narendra Surana filed a writ petition bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1424/2009 before this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 05.09.2011, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in light of the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Thereafter, the respondents finally passed an order on 23.07.2013 holding that since there had been no sanctioned post, therefore, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized. However, they shall continue to work in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell on the aforesaid posts.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioners have been discharging regular services on the posts of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant–cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta). The date of appointment of the three petitioners is 11.01.1995 (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), dated 04.08.1990 (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) and dated 18.11.1991 (petitioner-Narendra Surana). Learned counsel for the petitioners has been able to demonstrate that the Entrepreneurship Development Cell in the MBM Engineering College was established after due sanction and the petitioners are regularly discharging services for last about 28 years. The resolutions passed by the Syndicate of the University on 24.11.2004 and further on 06.10.2005 also reflect that the Statutory Body of the University had considered the case for regularization and had allowed the same. The precedent laws, as settled by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Dr. Vijay Pareek and Sudhanshu Roy Bhatt, have clearly reflected indulgence of this Hon'ble Court in directing regularization of the services of the persons working for last about 30 years. The submission made on behalf of the respondents that the case for regularization has not been considered only on the ground that the University is not having sanctioned post, which has also been dealt with in the precedent law of Dr. Vijay Pareek whereby this Hon'ble Court had held that even when the sanctioned post was not there, the regularization had been permitted from the date of discharge of services by the incumbent. This submission of the respondents will not be able to lessen the strength of the petitioners' case as the resolution dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Syndicate of the University is already existing in their favour, and moreover, the respondents have not been able to dispute that the petitioners are continuously discharging their services. The respondents have already taken a decision on 23.07.2013 that the job requirement of the petitioners is existing and the petitioners shall continue to draw the fixed pay scales and shall not be discontinued from the services. The long drawn continuous services of the petitioners ranging from 23 years to 28 years is a clear indication that the petitioners are discharging a regular work and ought to be given the benefit of regularization.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services with effect from the initial date of their appointment with all consequential benefits, including grant of selection scale, computation of pensionary period accordingly along with computation of pension and other benefits, which such regularization may give to the petitioners.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed and the respondent-University is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Coordinator (petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi), Steno-cum-Typist (petitioner-Narendra Surana) and Assistant-cum-Accountant (petitioner-Prem Chand Mehta) from the initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits, including grant of selection scale, computation of pensionary period accordingly along with computation of pension and other benefits, which such regularization may give to the petitioners. The benefits shall be granted to the petitioners notionally upto the date when the first judgment of consideration was rendered by this Hon'ble Court on 05.09.2011, as aforementioned, and thereafter, the actual benefits shall be granted to them.