The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employee's entitlement to regularization and benefits was governed by the adjudication made in his favor in 1995, and subsequent judgments could not be applied retroactively to his case.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. The facts for the present purposes are that the respondent's husband late Mr. Chandra Prakash Rajpurohit (hereinafter referred to as "employee") was a part time cook with the petitionerDepartment.

3. Husband of respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in this Court being SBCWP No.55/1995, inter alia, seeking regularization of his services. Said writ petition came to be decided by this Court, vide order dated 26.05.1995 and a direction was issued to place the employee (petitioner therein) at the lowest of the pay scale payable to a Class IV employee and regularize him in the services.

4. The above referred order dated 26.05.1995 reads thus:-

"The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner minimum pay in the lowest pay scale applicable to the post of regular Class IV Servants from the date of filing of the petition and consider regularisation of his services in the light of directions made in order being passed today in S.B.C.W.Petition No.3453/94 (Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State & others), decided on May, 1995. The relief will be given only if the petitioner was in service on the date of filing of the petition. No order as to costs."

5. Against the order aforesaid, the State had preferred an intra-Court appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. The order dated 26.05.1995 thus, attained finality.

6. The employee thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), against non-action of the Department towards his right of regularization and benefit of selection grade.

7. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal on 27.08.2002 with a direction to the employee to file a representation and corresponding direction to the petitioners to decide his representation in accordance with law.

8. When the State still did not pay any heed, the employee approached the Tribunal again and prayed that he be given regular pay scale and other benefits, which flow from his regular status.

9. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the employee vide its order dated 12.12.2017 and held that the employee was entitled for regularization and all consequential benefits including grant of benefit of circular dated 25.01.1992 (for grant of selection grade).

10. It was also directed by the Tribunal, that in case of failure to make payment of the due amount within three months, interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be payable.

11. The State has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated 12.12.2017 of the Tribunal.

12. Mr. Bissa, learned Government Counsel argued that the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal, so also contrary to the judgment dated 13.01.2011 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal and Ors (Civil Appeal No.486/2011).

13. Advancing his argument further, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the judgment dated 26.05.1992 passed by this Court in employee's earlier writ petition and highlighted that this Court in the writ petition filed by the employee had issued no direction for regularization and had issued direction only to pay him minimum pay scale, which the State is admittedly paying.

14. He further argued that since this Court while deciding employee's writ petition had not given any direction for regular pay scale or the benefits of selection grade, learned Tribunal could not have issued such direction in an appeal filed by the employee.

15. Learned counsel further argued that employee's writ petition was decided in light of judgment rendered in case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. The State of Rajathan (WP No.3453/1994) and the same