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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar - Appellants
Versus
Mukesh Sharma S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347/2019, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1759/2018, 1791/2018, 1853/2018, 1857/2018, 1864/2018, 1865/2018, 1870/2018, 1871/2018, 1874/2018, 1898/2018, 1911/2018 D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 127/2019, 133/2019, 135/2019, 138/2019, 163/2019, 169/2019, 170/2019, 171/2019, 221/2019, 222/2019, 241/2019, 243/2019, 244/2019, 245/2019, 247/2019, 251/2019, 278/2019, 304/2019, 305/2019, 306/2019, 307/2019, 310/2019, 320/2019, 321/2019, 322/2019, 323/2019, 324/2019, 325/2019, 328/2019, 330/2019, 331/2019, 332/2019, 333/2019, 342/2019, 344/2019, 350/2019, 354/2019, 356/2019, 360/2019, 361/2019, 362/2019, 363/2019, 375/2019, 382/2019, 387/2019, 395/2019, 404/2019, 411/2019, 419/2019, 442/2019, 443/2019, 449/2019, 452/2019, 454/2019, 455/2019, 496/2019, 497/2019, 498/2019, 499/2019, 500/2019, 523/2019, 549/2019, 552/2019, 553/2019, 564/2019, 567/2019, 572/2019, 577/2019, 605/2019, 761/2019, 762/2019, 763/2019, 764/2019, 765/2019, 766/2019, 767/2019, 854/2019, 856/2019, 888/2019, 889/2019, 890/2019, 891/2019, 892/2019, 934/2019, 941/2019, 955/2019, 956/2019, 957/2019, 333/2020
Decided on : 13-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Jodha
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Dr. AA Bhansali, Dr. Nikhil Dungawat, Mr. Nihar Jain, Mr. SKM Vyas, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Govind Suthar, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr. BS Sandhu, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. Firoz Khan, Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary

Point of Law: Since the similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, the University should have taken up the cases of the respondents petitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then the persons who are similarly situated and working in the organization should not be dragged in the Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as the employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached the Court of law.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Regularizing services in the University - Sub-Committee recommended for regularization of their services - services on contract basis - Learned Single Judge Since the common question of law and fact is involved in all these matters, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment - Noted for deciding the controversy are that respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts viz. Book Attendant, LDC, Library Assistant - Junior Accountant, Accountant, Helper, Staff Nurse, Sweeper, Lab Bearer, Lab Attendant, Book Lifter, Security Guard, Matron, Driver/Peon, LDC cum Computer Operator in appellant University - placement agency. Since, the respondents-petitioners 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 - services of six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion to petitioners in University on contractual/daily wage basis - Respondents-petitioners prayed for regularizing their services on the ground of parity in view of decision taken by Syndicate of University - six similarly situated employees were confirmed and were also granted regular pay scale same was not agreed to by University –

Finding of the Court:

Exception may not apply in those cases where judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not - With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons - similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefit of regularization, University should have taken up the cases of the respondents petitioners on its own and as a model employer if a judgment has been pronounced by a Court of law, then persons who are similarly situated and working in organization should not be dragged in Courts of law by not extending the same benefits as employer is under an obligation to extend the same benefit to those persons who have not even approached Court of law - Respondents were absorbed by being given benefit of regularization - Division Bench of the High Court has taken note of the discriminatory approach of university in conferring the benefit of regularization to some and not to all those daily wagers who are eligible - judgment of the High Court which warrants interference by Court - Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per judgment of Court in Gujarat Agricultural University’s case right of the Respondents for regularization has been correctly recognized by the High Court – Court find no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Single Benches –

Result: Appeals are dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. The defects pointed out by the Registry in some of the appeals are over-ruled.

2. In some of the appeals, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed for condonation of delay.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeals is condoned.

4. The present batch of appeals led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1456/2016 Sunil Kumar Ojha vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur arise out of the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and other connected matters came to be decided on different dates by the learned Single Judge i.e. on 30.08.2018, 17.07.2018, 20.07.2018, 14.08.2018, 14.02.2019 & 14.11.2018. Since the common question of law and fact is involved in all these matters, as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts which are required to be noted for deciding the controversy are that respondents-petitioners were appointed on different posts 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 in the appellant- Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.N.V University’) on different dates through the placement agency. Since, the respondents-petitioners had already put in almost 15-30 years of service, they requested for regularizing their services in the University but their services were not regularised.

5. In the year 1999, the meetings of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University were held on 22.03.1999 & 26.03.1999 for considering regularization of the services of six persons who were rendering their services in a similar fashion to the 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. It is 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 regularise their services. However, when the grievances of the respondents petitioners were not redressed, separate writ petitions were filed before this Court and the same were allowed by various Single Benches of this Court directing the appellant-University to regularize the services of the respondents-petitioners with all consequential benefits.

6. To complete the factual matrix, it is also relevant to mention that the writ petitions preferred by some of the employees were allowed by the learned Single Benches and the appeals preferred by the University against the same were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In some of the cases, even the Special Leave Petitions filed by the University before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were also dismissed. The details of the same are reproduced below in tabular form:-

1. JITENDRA KUMAR (PEON/CHOWKIDAR)

S.No

Type of Case

Case No.

Appellant

Vs

Respondent

Date of Decision

Status

1

SBCWP

8660/2011

Jitendra Kumar

Vs

JNVU

13.12.2013

Allowed in favour of employee/petitioner

2

DBSAW

354/2014

JNVU

Vs

Jitendra Kumar

18.07.2014

Appeal filed by Respondent University dismissed

3

SLP

30831/2014

JNVU

Vs

      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